Thank you, Madam Chair.
Our presentation is fairly lengthy. We did hand out the presentation, so I will not read it throughout; however, I will comment on some paragraphs—it's produced in paragraph form—and I'll leave the rest for you to read during your leisure.
Again, on behalf of the chief and president of the Native Council of Nova Scotia, the chief and president of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council, as well as the chief and president of the Native Council of Prince Edward Island, and on behalf of Joshua McNeely, the executive director of Ikanawtiket, and Jessica Seward, who is our species at risk specialist, thank you for inviting us to this important panel.
I will skip paragraphs 1 through 9, which basically give a fairly good extensive background about the councils and their work, as well as a number of publications that we have produced over time. In paragraph 11 specifically we present the panel with some reports on the case study of the eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management plan, known as ESSIM, as well as some samples of other work we have done. We have also included a map of population numbers so you can understand the on-reserve population as well as the off-reserve population. The maps will be speaking about the experiences of the off-reserve aboriginal peoples in the three maritime provinces.
Again, we'll skip paragraphs 12 through 16 and go to paragraph 17. It's a quote, but it's an important quote that will help you understand where we're coming from:
There is a conflict of values and a diversion of interests between the homocentric western oriented Canadian (worldview) and the ecocentric Indian Nations of Peoples (worldview). At the heart of this problem lies the fundamental issue of value perceptions.
Paragraph 19 says we would like to share and speak on a few fundamental issues.
Paragraph 20 says that it is trite, but worthy to repeat, that mainstreaming sustainable development at all levels, “through the whole of all governments within the Federation of Canada”, is an absolute necessity, as is the need to integrate the aspects of economics, civil society, and the environment.
These three—and we should also submit a fourth necessity, visionary leadership—are prerequisites to begin to adopt sustainable development in all of its dimensions and demonstrate respect for Mother Earth and her natural resources and her natural forces, which sustain all life forms on Mother Earth.
I will skip through paragraph 21, which ends by saying that aboriginal people's knowledge reveals that the future of humanity hinges on establishing a living life pattern based on a culture of life. Foremost to achieving this mind shift and this ethics shift is that states need to replace their current material-focused development models with models that place life, complementariness, reciprocity, respect for cultural diversity and sustainable use of natural resources, as the principal priorities of progress over individual greed, indulgence, and materialism.
From an indigenous person's perspective, no one person is able to comprehend the enormity of creation and the purpose and place of personkind on earth except the Creator, who has created all. It is from the divine that this great mystery emerges.
In paragraph 23 I'm going to relate a little insight into an aboriginal teaching, which may shed, again, more light to you.
It is told that a great bear came in a vision to the grandmother of the Mi'kmaq Nation. The bear spoke about the love of the Creator for the L'nu and said the Creator would never allow the true human to be destroyed on earth. The prayers of remorse have been heard, she was told, and the L'nu must accept a new teaching to be saved on earth. The bear said to the grandmother, “Creator has given to each true human three spirits. They each have a name and a purpose. The names are ‘safe journey’, ‘wise council’ and ‘full provision.’”
"Safe journey" is given for protection and worship. Life on earth is a sacred journey. "Wise council" is given for peace and community. A time will come when all of the L'nu will live in community with one another. "Full provision" is given for assurance that everything the L'nu need for a good life has been provided to them on their land.
Moving to paragraph 26, we learn that a task that escapes reality escapes a fundamental truth: to preserve or sustain for the future, we ourselves must be prepared to sacrifice and drop our greed, giving thanks for what we have to sustain us rather than amassing and regaling ourselves with gold and trinkets and the fallacy of wealth creation as a culture guaranteeing eternal life.
Why does Canada set aside lands and waters as protected areas? If Canada is a society that truly believes in conservation and sustainable use with equitable sharing, as Canadians everywhere believe they do, then what is the purpose of designating 17% of our land mass and 10% of our water mass to be protected? What of the other 83% and 90%? Are they not protected, and why not?
Skipping to paragraph 31, what recommendations could possibly result from an itemization of national parks, protected areas, etc., when every day all of us in this room and every person in this federation of the peoples of Canada can point to an activity, works, project, or development that is not sustainable and that continues to reveal repercussions from the approval decisions—irreparable harm to biodiversity, scarred habitats, changed landscapes, polluted lakes and rivers, the renaming of lakes to become toxic effluent tailings ponds, wetlands diverted by channels to become dry and barren, and on and on? We shake our heads and wonder when it will end and how we can return to celebrate the culture of life as the eternal truth of our belonging to Mother Earth.
The Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council has been involved and continues to be involved in marine protected areas in the Maritimes. For 10 years after we started on the voyage and for four years since, DFO submitted the St. Anns Bank for approval to Ottawa. They're still awaiting an answer.
During the intervening period, Ottawa cancelled the eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management planning initiative, ESSIM, which had been brought forward and worked on by governments, industry, academics, aboriginal rights holders, and members of the public for several years to be the umbrella management mechanism under which other initiatives, such as MPA planning, would fit. During the intervening years, Ottawa had also begun the dismantling of DFO science and putting any talk about MPA selection management on a slow back burner.
St. Anns Bank alone could account for 4,364 square kilometres of protected area. It is true that MPA development by a true group of interests for a true purpose with a true intent of stakeholders and rights holders, with DFO leadership, was driven upwards, but thus far it has been denied from the top.
I'll move to paragraph 37. We would hope that 44 years after the Stockholm declaration, 29 years after the Brundtland commission, 24 years after Rio Agenda 21, and 14 years after the Johannesburg declaration, we would be able to say that 100% of Canada is conserved and sustainably used and that the benefits of Canada's vast resources are fairly and equitably shared. Obviously, we are not there. Tallying the results of your assessments and their acreages won't get us there either. How are we to achieve Aichi target 11 when we are not even talking in Canada about Aichi Targets 1, 2, 3, and 4?
We leave you with a thought from a leading expert on marine protected areas, Dr. Peter Lawless of New Zealand, who recently visited Canada, the United States, and Australia to compare and contrast those states' methods for engaging their citizens in marine protected areas conservation, such as Canada's experiences with the Gully off the coast of Nova Scotia with those of New Zealand, such as the New Zealand government's engagement of the Maori for the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits from the Hikurangi marine protected area and the Marlborough marine area.
His visit also included an extensive meeting with MAPC. Thereafter, Mr. Lawless concluded:
The Mi 'kmaq experience is very familiar in outline with the Ngati Kuri history of occupation. Their current situation, however, reflects the complexity of the Canadian relationship with their indigenous citizens and a relative failure to fully grasp the nettle of reconciliation and recompense. It is notable that all parties operate in a far more legally focused frame than New Zealanders would be accustomed to. In the absence of an equivalent of the Waitangi Tribunal, the parties fall back on the courts, which are not really well constituted to research and resolve historical grievances. Policy, networking, [and] the methodology for marine protected areas formation are all weak, and the targets set by the Liberal Government are impractical without a brutal, top-down approach that would offend against its other principles of collaboration.
We have also provided the committee with a fair amount of documentation that you can review.
Marine protected areas or terrestrial protected areas require citizens' engagement. It is citizens who make it happen, not government alone. It's not a legal prescript that will do anything; we need to have it bottom-up and approved at the top, not the other way around.
With that, wela'lin.
We're prepared to answer any questions, or add more, or read more—whatever you wish.
Thank you very much.