Environment Committee on Sept. 28th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Great.

Next up is Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Ms. Redfern, I was very struck by your eloquent description of the polar bear hunt and the relationship between the polar bear hunt and the preservation of the culture. Some day I'll have enough money to do that myself.

Again, this is to the government members on this committee. Because polar bears are a very contentious issue under the Species at Risk Act and the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, I think we should take the side of the Inuit on this particular one, unequivocally support the hunt as strongly as we can, and fight all those forces who would do their best to put this culture out of business, because that's what they would largely do. Here we have a success story. Let's continue it.

I'd like to quote from the testimony of Mr. Peter Williamson, who spoke at the indigenous affairs committee hearings on suicide rates. This is in relation to culture, land, and wildlife. He says:

I want to talk about a couple of issues I think will make a difference. One is I really started noticing a difference in how many young people committed suicide after their parents and their aunts and uncles and their grandparents could no longer afford to go hunting, because living the traditional lifestyle and being brought up in a community and in a family where the traditional lifestyle is the way you are brought up really does make a difference. We started losing that in the 1970s, and the 1980s too, but it started in the 1970s. Once that happened, more people did commit suicide. There was what were called the seal wars at the time, when Greenpeace and other environmental activist organizations who wanted to raise money started to attack the sealing industry, which Inuit were a part of. They really relied on seal hunting to make a living.

He made the obvious connection between the pride of retaining a culture and providing for a family in a sustainable manner, but also, I think, the appalling connection between these rich outside groups who basically, even though they didn't say it, worked their hardest to destroy a culture.

Could you comment on this particular episode and how you see this playing out?

[Madeleine Redfern]

It's a very complicated and loaded issue inasmuch as we desire, and rightly so, the ability to be self-sufficient and the ability to make our choices, especially if they are sustainable and the science supports these hunts. They are without a doubt important rites of passage—the ability to provide for oneself, for one's family and one's community, and the nourishment that comes from these hunts, not just the food but the connection and spiritual relationship of being able to go out on the land and to share that knowledge and that tradition with your children. There are a lot of stories and legends, and environmental knowledge, science, and technology. Without a doubt, it is an embodiment of a way of being, of part of your identity.

As it relates to heritage, there is where, again, it's very difficult to.... It's all-encompassing, an activity that is part of our heritage. The relationships we have with each other and transferring that skill and that knowledge are part of our heritage. There's a lot of work yet to be done to fully educate not only Canadians but others as well, that as long as it is sustainable....

I go back to the Brundtland commission definition. You can have different values. You can have different ways to achieve those values. We have different cultures. At the end of the day, whether it's the United Nations rights on indigenous peoples or just the fundamental United Nations rights as a human being, we should respect those differences, embrace them, and celebrate them.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes: very, very well said. I had the opportunity in a previous life to participate in an Inuit caribou hunt with the Netser family from Coral Harbour, who I'm sure you know. Because I was young and strong at the time, and was able to carry a quarter of a caribou, they nicknamed me “Pungnik”. I'm very proud of my Inuit nickname. I checked with enough people, and it is a compliment. Knowing what I know about aboriginal humour, at first I thought it was the north end of a south-facing caribou, but it turns out it's not a bad name to have.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Anyway, I very much appreciate your eloquent answer. You can rest assured that on this side of the table, we will defend, until the very, very end, your right to hunt seals and the ability to ensure that the polar bear hunt continues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Smith, you talked about the national building code and changes that you think might be necessary. To be honest, going into this study I didn't really consider that much. At least in Ontario, section 5 of the building code specifically talks about restoration, so one of the challenges to people restoring property is what they are going to have to do to get it up to current code. Section 5 specifically talks about stuff like, if you go to insulate an exterior wall, and you don't have enough room to get to R24, but you can make it to R16, you're improving what was there before, so that's seen as a good thing because you're making it better than it was.

I don't know if the national building code addresses that. I'm only familiar with Ontario's building code. Can you talk a little bit about whether that's the kind of change you're looking for and whether it's addressed? If it isn't, how it could be addressed?

[Julian Smith]

I think the reason the national building code has to be looked at is that you can always debate bylaws—you go to a committee of variance and they're adjustable—but you can't argue with the national building code or the provincial building codes. They're the law. There is an NFB film called Still Mine, which is a commentary on building codes. There are a number of issues.

You're right; Ontario and B.C., in different ways, have added sections to the national building code, when they adopted them by the province, to try to deal with the unique character of existing places. We also have, increasingly, immigrant communities that are bringing all kinds of different lifestyles to Canada, and the national building code doesn't recognize that. For example, bedrooms have to be a certain size. The idea of mixed use is not clearly explored in the national building code. We should be looking at that. If you want a small bedroom, why are you not allowed, under the national building code, to have a small bedroom? Doesn't that allow for smaller houses, which is more sustainable?

The national building code comes out of the 1950s. It comes out of that whole idea that we fit into these boxes and we are building suburban homes. I worked with a first nations community in the Yukon. They wanted to build log homes, and CMHC wouldn't allow them. They said that if you look at the theoretical model, they don't work as well. Well, the theoretical model may work fine if you have a stud wall with insulation, but in the north it doesn't work very well.

That committee is so fixated on protecting and defending the national building code as it exists—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

To be fair, some of it may have been built out of.... If you allow for really small bedrooms, you could end up with landlords building these buildings just trying to maximize profit. Where is the balance?

[Julian Smith]

That's exactly the issue, but that's where this top-down approach that the experts know best and everybody will follow the expert rule.... That's why the OMB exists in Ontario. I think it's going to see the end of its life fairly soon—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I hope so.

[Julian Smith]

—and that's a good thing. We live in a 1950s structure. As you said, the first nations don't even exist in that grid. They are invisible. We have to start over on some of these things, and the national building code is just one of those areas.

If you go to that committee, you'll see that it's mostly industry representatives who are selling the kinds of products that were used in London on that high-rise that burned to the ground. That's not a good place to get a—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That's great, thanks. I promised to share my time with Mr. Aldag.

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

Thank you.

This is week two of our study. Part of what I'm looking at is how do we recommend to the government that the finite resources that we hope to have available for heritage be divided up? As I look, I see some pieces of the pie. One of them is going to be places the federal government owns: national historic sites, federal heritage buildings. There are going to be federally designated sites, the family of national historic sites, the third party owned and operated ones. There is the federal stewardship role, the collection of properties that are on the federal heritage register.

I see there are new initiatives, this whole question of indigenous and how we engage with indigenous heritage. Then there is the other big part. We are going to be spending billions of dollars in the next decade on the parliamentary precinct. I am concerned that the federal government will simply say, “There, we've spent billions of dollars, check mark”, when we could actually be working across the country on a whole bunch of fronts.

In the seconds that are left, could each of you give some thoughts on that? How do we divide up this pie to have maximum impact across the community?

Mr. Smith, go ahead.

[Julian Smith]

I was responsible for the master plan for the rehabilitation of the parliament buildings in Toronto. I worked with a committee of five MPPs, who directed the whole process. I am astonished that Centre Block is about to undergo what will probably be a $2.5-billion to $3-billion renovation without being directed by a committee of parliamentarians and without having first nations representation on it. Why should we spend that much money and not have Parliament buildings that begin to reintroduce first nations into Canada and our identity, as expressed on the Hill?

I really worry about that project. I think it's being controlled by a small group in Public Works, and Public Works is getting about $1 billion out of that budget for themselves, just to administer it.

I think that's a huge problem. I think parliamentarians should take over that project, the way they did in Ontario. They bypassed their public works department entirely and hired us as consultants to report to Parliament, which the House of Commons could do, and the Senate and the library together. I'll just say that on this issue.

Otherwise, I think it's much more important that the federal government not just deal with its heritage properties—I set up the federal heritage building program 30 years ago—but look at its accommodation patterns and where federal money supports all kinds of other initiatives in the country. That's where the U.S. federal role has been the most significant. Every federal department is required, first, to look at accommodating itself in a place...other than having Parks Canada in Les Terrasses de la Chaudière. That's ridiculous, when those owners do take the risk and create heritage property, and nobody from a government agency will come and rent it from them. I would see the emphasis there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

The question was asked to other members. Do I have the will of the committee to hear from the other two and go a tiny bit longer? We do have the time on the clock. Is that fair? Is that a questioning stream you're all interested in?

Let's hear from the other two parties on that question.

[Madeleine Redfern]

One of the things that I think almost all indigenous people would be concerned about is our inclusion just being the ongoing practice of including artwork in the buildings and nothing else, or words being written by non-indigenous people about what our heritage is in those spaces.

As it comes to the question about how we divvy up the programs and funding that's available, we do make up 4% of the population, and I don't think we even get 4% of that funding, ever. I can tell you, from the past few years—as Karen has reiterated many a time—we have volunteered our time. I think for the most part, right across the country, you will see that indigenous peoples are struggling outside of our own communities to get any recognition to be able to participate. Even when we are allowed to participate, we're expected to do so without any resources.

At this point in time, anything would be better for us than the current status quo.

[Chris Wiebe]

I think it would be interesting to see a really ambitious program that was moving forward, perhaps incrementally, on all fronts. I think it would be a lost opportunity if that didn't happen. I understand there's a need to have the federal government get its house in order in terms of its management of its own heritage buildings or in terms of the national historic sites that Parks Canada and other departments own. I think there's a need for some kind of expanded funding for non-federally owned national historic sites.

In terms of something like a tax credit or some other kind of funding model that would be able to touch Canadian communities across the face of the country, it would be a huge impact and would be an interesting leadership role for the federal government. Obviously, it's showing its own leadership through the handling of its own iconic places throughout the country, but I think in terms of seeing a broader role for itself and that support for this kind of work around the country, the tax credits would be something important to look at. It would be mindset-changing and game-changing for a lot of people to see they're supporting this kind of development. It would shift development thinking, I think, and people's thinking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you for that.

Thanks for the patience of the committee to hear from all of you.

You have three minutes, Mr. Stetski, and then we're done.

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

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the structure of the board of National Trust for Canada, but I'm thinking, just in terms of a general practice, should the federal government mandate that any organization they give money to with a board have indigenous people on that board? I'm not sure what the current situation is with National Trust.

Do you have indigenous people on the board currently?

[Chris Wiebe]

Yes. Our vice-chair is Lorna Crowshoe. She is from Blackfoot First Nation from Calgary.

The National Trust was set up with an endowment and sent on its way back in 1973, so we don't receive any funds from the federal government now. I think it's important for all organizations to have first nations, Métis, and Inuit members on their board. There is now a new board member, Mr. Suluk from Nunavut, who's going to be coming on to our board this year. I think that's an important—

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

What about as a general practice? Would that be considered part of reconciliation, really, to ensure that there are indigenous people on every heritage board that the federal government funds?

[Madeleine Redfern]

Without a doubt, it's a first step, but it's not the only step. What I recognize, having been on several national organizations or NGOs, often as the only indigenous person, is that it's a challenge to try to influence a long-stated, pre-existing mindset or culture within the organization, even at the governance level. For the most part, the heavy lifting and the day-to-day stuff happens in the staff, and there's a lack of indigenous people within the organization as a whole. You are often only one of.... Sometimes there could be 12 board members, and they tend to continue to function very much the way they did before.

[Karen Aird]

I've sat on quite a few boards as well. I do think it is a good step; I agree, but I also think we need to move beyond that, because you're seeing now there's a movement beyond just a voice. People need to make changes, systematic changes. In terms of all the boards I have sat on, there's just not enough of you to deal with all the issues and all the involvement. It often takes away from the real work we're trying to do in our communities.

One of the things I find challenging, too, is that part of it is that you're educating people about indigenous perspective and indigenous heritage. That's great, and it's very beneficial, but it does take away from our real work of what we are trying to do. If we go to every conference and meeting and educate people, we're not able to try to protect those areas in our communities and really work. That's happening with our leaders and everybody.