Environment Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Before we go to the next person, I'd like some clarification. You mentioned in your testimony that young trees sequester more carbon, but is it not true that larger trees add more volume and therefore, in essence, actually older trees, or sort of in that mid-range, would be sequestering more carbon than a young tree because of the volume that—

[Gary Bull]

We distinguish between sequestering and storage. What you're referring to in the old trees is that they are storing more carbon. That is also legitimate, and has to be brought into the carbon accounting to figure out the best and smartest ways for us to meet our targets in climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thanks so much for that clarification.

Mr. Stetski.

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

Thank you all for being here. I was born in Churchill and I started school at Chesterville Inlet, so I'm going to start with Nunavut.

Obviously there's a number of issues that needed to be sorted through, but in general do you think it's the right thing to set aside more land and water under protected status?

[Cathy Towtongie]

Thank you for that question, Wayne. As president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc....Inuit, we are the largest private landholders in the world for Nunavut, and we are quite capable of setting aside protected areas and determining which ones we want protected. Right now we hold, I believe, 25% of the natural gas for Canada. We are quite capable of being involved with the committee because our area has no trees so the rush and the time management of this committee for me, politely, is not acceptable.

I flew two days to get here because it was so crucial and important. On our land mass we have permafrost, climate change. We want to be involved in decision-making and in actually advising Canada where Nunavut could have protected areas and conservation areas because we do have polar bears and we have narwhals, which you do not have. The comparison between first nations.... We pay taxes. That is not acceptable. Our territory is very different. In our situation we have icebergs, melting ice, we are experiencing it.

I'm giving it to Bruce. I'm really shortening that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

There's a follow-up question, Bruce, if you could also answer it. You said that the government was in breach of some existing protected areas. I'm interested in how it's in breach as well.

[Bruce Uviluq]

It's important to note that Nunavut represents one-fifth of the land mass of Canada. I just wrote down a list of the current protected areas that we have. Just quickly to name them, we have eight migratory bird sanctuaries, five national wildlife areas, six national parks, the Lancaster Sound National Marine Conservation Area, the Northwest Passage, six territorial parks. The two that are in breach are in heritage rivers and the 13 historic sites—two of which are very publicly known, the Terror and Erebus, which our president mentioned earlier—and also we are negotiating marine conservation areas in the future.

With that being said, in one-fifth of the land mass of Canada we do have a lot of potential for protected areas and the largest migratory bird sanctuary in the world is located in the Kitikmeot Region in the Queen Maud Gulf. The migratory bird sanctuary is larger than P.E.I. That's one of 13. So there is potential for more protected areas and Inuit will choose those, and that's what is laid out in our land claim agreement.

Also, on the other side too is that we have two existing mines and there were three that were recently turned down, including the uranium mine near Baker Lake, which went under an impact review board, and the Inuit said no and it didn't happen.

There were two other ones that were recently noted where there were no major developments because of what the land claim agreement says. So I think there is a great opportunity for those and we look forward to working with Canada on establishing new protected areas, but they'll be under the land claim agreement, and that shows where the boundaries will be chosen and this kind of thing. So definitely there is an opportunity.

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

Thank you.

[Bruce Uviluq]

The last question was about the two in breach?

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

Yes, what are the breaches?

[Bruce Uviluq]

The agreement says that an impact and benefit agreement is to be negotiated for any protected area, and there were a number of protected areas already in existence when the land claim agreement was signed in 1993. So the land claim agreement said that these protected areas must have impact and benefit agreements by 1998, and that time is long since past. So those are for the heritage rivers and the historic sites.

I think that we're in a unique situation where the government is freshly out of our settling the $1-billion lawsuit, which we settled out of court two years ago for $255 million. So I think the government is aware that when it's in breach—and recent case law supports this—the breachee can sue for damages. We got that a little while ago. It's there, it's in place. We've been trying to work with the federal government on these impact and benefit agreements, but it's just not happening.

Just in addition, a final point is what you have in front of you on recommendation number one is that we need a new concerted approach on the approach of funding, implementing, and negotiating constitutionally protected land claim agreement provisions. I think that the government is on the way. We see this with the mandate letters, but also the cabinet directive on modern treaties that was established by the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. Yes, you're out of time, sorry.

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

We'll get a second round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Well, I'm hoping so.

Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Uviluq, when my colleague, Mr. Amos, was finishing up his question, it looked like you were going to jump in. Did you have a thought that you ran out of time on that you wanted to share?

[Bruce Uviluq]

Yes, absolutely. Thank you. It was based on the last point. I think the government is realizing that it can no longer shirk its constitutionally protected land claim agreement obligations, and so we're heading in a positive direction. We hope to see some positive movement on these two agreements that are in breach now, that Qilak is working on. From Cathy's comments, too, I think that we want to see these protected areas happen. Inuit are the best stewards of the environment and the wildlife, and we just want to see the land claim agreement followed. I think that those recommendations encompass the things that we're looking for, and it's time for the government to start realizing that and to start implementing these land claim agreements. It will be beneficial for the Inuit, for Canada, and for the rest of the world.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

While you're at the microphone, I'm curious as to the idea you raised about the national historic sites. That's something new that's come up. Could you give a bit of an explanation? Are these land-based historic sites? Are they a national designation?

[Bruce Uviluq]

Our agreement says that they're any protected areas in this negotiated impact and benefit agreement. These are there. The problem is that—

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Sorry, would they have predated the creation of Nunavut?

[Bruce Uviluq]

Yes.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

They would have been inherited from when the territory was created in 1999?

[Bruce Uviluq]

Yes.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay. So there's still work that needs to be dealt with.

[Bruce Uviluq]

Yes. We know that the government spends $28 billion a year on grants and contribution agreements for government programs and services. Typically, our land claim agreement obligations have been lumped into these contribution agreements. We don't feel that land claim obligations should be treated as a government program and service. For example, a marine biologist and three other scientists who are travelling up to Grise Fiord to study the eggshell thicknesses of thick-billed murres need a contribution agreement of $100,000. You need to make sure that they're spending the money on that process, and that they're not going to Las Vegas. It's about transparency, accountability, that kind of thing. Our agreement was signed in 1993. Canada knew of all the obligations that it was getting into. We are not opposed to audits and reporting requirements, but we don't see the need to jump through all the hoops and onerous administrative requirements of contributions agreements. Those are the reasons why we haven't been able to sign these agreements with the Government of Canada.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay. Still.