Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Ms. Ford, in one minute can you just touch on the Convention on Biological Diversity? That's a really important aspect of what's happening in the north.

[Violet Ford]

Yes. Do you want just an overview of the treaty, or the...?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Well, not an overview, but what are the roadblocks? Is there a re-emphasis of the importance of it?

[Violet Ford]

First of all, the CBD is very important for indigenous peoples worldwide because of its recognition of traditional knowledge. It's the only international legally binding instrument that recognizes the participation and the use of traditional knowledge of indigenous people in environmental management. The issue for us in Canada is that Canada has not implemented this convention at the national level. The access- and benefit-sharing of genetic resources is just one of the regimes coming out of this instrument that is going to have an impact on Inuit in Canada.

Now, Canada is developing a domestic ABS policy, but we've reviewed the discussion paper that Environment Canada is coming out with, and it doesn't address any of the issues that Inuit and ICC are concerned about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much.

That ended up being a good segue, in fact, because I'm going to take the next spot for the government here, and I wanted to follow along in the same line, Ms. Ford.

You introduced the idea of genetic resources and went on to explain. I wonder whether you could take a minute to expand on that idea of genetic resources, give some examples, and maybe just spend a minute or so describing what the problem represents to potential economic advantages for Inuit.

[Violet Ford]

Sure. It's quite a complex process, and I don't have much time here to explain, but a genetic resource becomes a genetic resource from a biological resource when it has some commercial value. The issue for Inuit is that we don't know how many scientists are already taking genetic material from traditional plants, for example, on Inuit lands, bringing them down to universities, to laboratories, selling the information to other companies—for example, pharmaceutical companies. Then the connection, the link between the commercial value of it and its source is not going back to the Inuit areas; the commercial value is going back to the companies or it's going back to the university, and we're not having any royalty agreement type of arrangement.

As well, I'll give you a good example of a genetic resource issue that was faced by the Inuit in Labrador a few years ago. That's why it's so important for us to have these access- and benefit-sharing agreements arranged at the Inuit community level.

There were some Newfoundland government biologists who wanted access to a peregrine falcon nest to test the genetic material of the falcon nest. The only way they could get access to that nest was through the traditional knowledge of the Inuit elders in Nain, Labrador. The information was given to the biologists. The biologists found the nest. They brought the information back to St. John's, Newfoundland. A few days later the Labrador Inuit Association asked for the information that was gathered, and the scientists said “No, we don't have to share anything with you. We didn't have any arrangements with you.” This was very much of concern to the Inuit elders. It's the genetic resources that are linked to the traditional knowledge as well; that's one major issue for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Wouldn't the same protections under Canadian law extend as in other parts of the country?

[Violet Ford]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Could you explain why?

[Violet Ford]

The reason the existing intellectual property rights laws in Canada do not protect this is that intellectual property rights legislation does not protect anything that's already in the public domain. Once it's out in the public, there's no protection. Also, existing legislation does not cover collective rights of communities; it protects the individual. So that's another aspect of this genetic resource issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

To take that to the next step, you also gave the example of the unique Inuit designs.

[Violet Ford]

It's the same issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In the same vein, though, there is intellectual property protection.

[Violet Ford]

That's only for the design, but not for the technique used. For example, making Inuit women's amauti is a very skilled craft that's been passed on for generations. The technique used for that in itself is not protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Have you considered or pursued some form of patent protection under that?

[Violet Ford]

We go to the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva every few months to present our views on these types of issues. They are creating a new international treaty on traditional knowledge and genetic resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. Thank you very much. You had some very good responses.

In the last minute remaining, for our regulators who are here today, on the issue of monitoring, you've given a really good synopsis of what's happening on the assessment side. What does the regime look like in terms of the ongoing after-project implementation? Is there a role that the commission or either of your boards plays in terms of ongoing monitoring, and could you describe that?

[Stephanie Autut]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

Currently part 7 of the land claims agreement provides our board with monitoring obligations as they relate to project development. For any project that has gone before the board under a part 5 review, there are monitoring terms and conditions imposed through the project certificates. The obligation is placed on the proponent and other regulators in the formulation of socio-economic monitoring committees. There are requirements for ongoing wildlife monitoring, and the board does have the right to provide and ask for that information. That is built into the project certificate, which is our board's authority.

On a much smaller scale, we try to build some terms and conditions into the screening decision reports; however, those are primarily recommendations that go to government for inclusion in any regulatory instrument under part 4.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Very good, and I see that I am actually over time here as well, so now we will go to Mr. Russell. He has a short question, and then we're going back to Mr. Dreeshen.

Members, I don't have any other people on the list at this point, so if you think of something else, please signify to the clerk.

Let's go to Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you.

I'm going to direct my questions to Violet and Mr. Reimer.

It's good to see you again, Violet. It's always good to see you. Violet is from back in Labrador, and certainly we share some history. That's for sure.

Regarding your comments on the EU seal ban, I couldn't agree more. We've seen the impacts already in Labrador. It's born of ignorance on the part of legislators in Europe. I'll just state that for the record. We have seen dramatic impacts back home.

I want to talk about sovereignty for a second. I don't believe we can talk about economic development in the north without talking somewhat about sovereignty. Of course this has been a big mantra on the part of the government. Statements like “use it or lose it” presume that aboriginals and the indigenous peoples weren't there and that they haven't been using it for generations or millennia.

I want to get ICC's perspective. How are you approaching this whole issue of sovereignty? Many countries are now in this rush for resources in people's homelands and people's backyards. That is Inuit territory. It is Inuit land. So what has ICC's approach been to this whole issue of sovereignty and this rush for other people's resources?

[Violet Ford]

I don't think there is enough time in the world for me to get into this issue, but thanks for the question, Todd. This is a really important question that is dear to my heart and dear to the hearts of those within the ICC process.

I don't know if any of you, or if you, Todd, have heard that ICC has developed its own Arctic sovereignty declaration. I guess we should have brought in copies today, because it is a beautiful document. It has various elements that reflect Inuit values and beliefs, especially on the whole question of resources. That is the subject of one of the paragraphs on this sovereignty declaration. I can't remember the details of the paragraph, but it basically says that those resources are ours, and they're to be shared based on Inuit values and beliefs on sharing, and in response to the Inuit land claims as well, and that we have a right to those resources, and that this right flows from our right to self-determination under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other self-government arrangements.

Did that help you, Todd?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Russell and Ms. Ford.

Our last question is from Mr. Dreeshen. Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen. You have five minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This has been a great opportunity to meet and discuss some items with you, and I certainly look forward to having the opportunity to wrap up some of the things that have been said.

As Mr. Russell just mentioned, with regard to the seal hunt, these are things that have been so frustrating to so many people. There are those out there who have time on their hands to try to make things difficult for people, and there's a lot of that. That does happen. There are things that are so important to your communities, to Canada, to the country as a whole, and to the world as a whole, such as some of the development you spoke of in the north, that I think it's sometimes frustrating that we see others attempting to put us in a bad light.

Violet, I'd like to talk about how we fit the knowledge that you have in with the corresponding countries that are there. We have the knowledge of the Inuit who are in the circumpolar area, but what are the relationships that they have with their respective countries? Perhaps you can't get into too much detail as to what would happen there, but could you give us a bit of an overview? If we're trying to take our own Inuit people and allow them to expand, are there things we would have to be doing, perhaps at an international level, to assist you in that regard?

[Violet Ford]

Thanks for your interest and for that question.

There are a couple of things that come to mind, and they have to do with the whole transboundary issue of our traditional knowledge. Inuit have traditional knowledge that is not prevented from being used within national boundaries. This same traditional knowledge goes across the traditional lands we had, which span Canada, Russia, and Alaska. The existing national laws under which the Convention on Biological Diversity will be implemented will fragment our opportunities to apply our Inuit knowledge to sustainable development. So we really need some type of a protocol that will have to be agreed upon among the Arctic countries, which will allow us to protect our traditional knowledge and apply it and our genetic resources in the transboundary and traditional way that Inuit always had before countries came into being and divided up the territories.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

With regard to the 2007 Inuit action plan—and this is something again that you would have dealt with—I'm just wondering in what ways the Government of Canada can help ensure positive economic outputs for the Inuit, particularly in the territories, and also what can be done for women and youth as well.