ENVI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 8, 2001

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning to everyone. We welcome Mr. Leas and Mr. Carpenter, and we'll welcome other witnesses as they arrive.

As you know, we have five organizations on our agenda this morning. We have this room until 11 o'clock, and I'm told that some members have to leave because of the debate on water in the House. Those who are carrying out double or triple duty don't have an easy life these days.

We will start, because we have no option. If we would wait for the late arrivals, it would be at the expense of those who are on time, and we would lose in terms of having less time for questions. So if people, as witnesses arrive—and I'm referring to people who know Messrs. Watt and Peters and Agma and Roy—could invite them to come to the table as they arrive, it would be very helpful.

As you know, this committee is in a listening mode right now. It's listening and learning before we start going clause by clause. Today's an opportunity for us to hear you. We welcome you, and we invite you each to make possibly a short statement, and then we will progress. Thank you very much.

Who would like to be first?

Mr. Larry Carpenter (Chairman, Fisheries Joint Management Committee): Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, my name is Larry Carpenter. I'm representing three co-management boards established under the 1984 Inuvialuit Final Agreement: the Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the Northwest Territories, of which I'm the chair; the Wildlife Management Advisory Council for the North Slope; and the Fisheries Joint Management Committee.

All three committees are comprised of equal numbers of government, both federal and territorial, and Inuvialuit appointees. These bodies have a responsibility to advise the appropriate ministers on all matters related to wildlife and fisheries management regulation and the administration in the Inuvialuit settlement region.

At the outset, I would like to make reference to the submission of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, which we understand was presented to your committee on May 2. That brief was made on behalf of all Inuit, including the Inuvialuit of the western Arctic. It clearly identified the need for changes to the proposed legislation to make it consistent with northern land claims within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

• 0910

On behalf of the Inuvialuit members of our committees, I would ask that you carefully consider these recommendations. Within the limits of our resources we have reviewed the current draft of Bill C-5. We see the bill as being an important piece of legislation and support its intent to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct, to provide for the recovery of species at risk, and to manage species so as to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. However, we feel that the legislation will be most effective in its application within the settlement region if it is well integrated with Inuvialuit-based institutions.

It is unfortunate that your committee will not have the opportunity to be in the western Arctic region to meet the people who live in the Inuvialuit settlement region firsthand and to hear from wildlife users and those who participate in the management of wildlife. What we need to impress upon the standing committee is that there are significant differences in the circumstance and features of wildlife management in the Inuvialuit settlement region compared to those of southern Canada.

For the people who live in the settlement region's six communities, at least 50% of what they eat comes from their harvesting of fish and wildlife. To this end, wildlife management has a strong focus on the conservation of wildlife and habitat, and the establishment of sustainable harvest levels for harvested wildlife populations. Several of the key species of harvested wildlife in the settlement region, unlike in southern Canada, are high-profile megafauna such as polar bears, grizzly bears, barren ground caribou, musk oxen, and bowhead and beluga whales. Many lower-profile and apparently less charismatic forms of fauna such as fish, waterfowl, and seals are also key species of harvested wildlife in the Inuvialuit settlement region and elsewhere in northern Canada.

The significant rights to and use of wildlife in the settlement region are matched by constitutionally entrenched rights to participate in wildlife management. The IFA established a common and cooperative regime for wildlife management across the settlement region that guarantees exceptionally strong participation and a powerful voice for the Inuvialuit in wildlife management in the area, as well as equal representation with government on the two wildlife management advisory committees and the Fisheries Joint Management Committee.

This reality is a marked departure from the circumstance of native peoples in southern Canada. The voice of the Inuvialuit in wildlife management is not confined to small reservations of land but extends across an enormous portion of Canada's north—one million square kilometres in total.

The motivation for the proposed species at risk act is from southern Canada, but there will be significant impacts on northern Canada. The provisions of the proposed species at risk act must be sensitive to the environmental circumstances and institutional realities of the Inuvialuit settlement region. We cannot emphasize this point enough, especially since the standing committee cannot observe these differences firsthand.

Given the unique perspective of co-management boards in the Inuvialuit settlement region, we have identified a number of concerns and provided a few recommendations in our written submission. For the purpose of brevity, I will simply highlight some of these comments.

We continue to have serious concerns regarding how the institutional arrangements that underpin our councils and the use of traditional knowledge will be affected by the proposed species at risk act. Given the inextricable links between harvesting rights and wildlife management in the Inuvialuit settlement region, we are concerned about how wildlife harvesting rights could be affected as well.

The wildlife management advisory committees and the Fisheries Joint Management Committee have participated in the development of 50 species status reports, management plans, and management agreements for a wide variety of land and marine mammals, birds, and fish in the Inuvialuit settlement region. From the local hunters and trappers committees to the territorial and federal agencies, there's a high level of interjurisdictional cooperation for wildlife management in the ISR.

The relationship between wildlife management advisory committees and wildlife management agencies has worked well, and recommendations to the appropriate responsibilities have been well treated and accepted. We are therefore cautious about how COSEWIC will integrate into our processes and we into theirs.

• 0915

We recommend that the legislation, regulations, and administrative procedures give explicit recognition to the proactive and lead role that the wildlife management boards and the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, where so mandated, can assume in species listings and the development of recovery plans, especially for harvested wildlife.

COSEWIC can and should play a backstopping role in identifying and addressing gaps where they exist. In other words, the species at risk act should explicitly allow us to do our jobs. We recommend that the species at risk act recognize the constraints that land claim agreements may place on organizations wishing to place restrictions on the consumptive use of wildlife within claim areas. We applaud the efforts of the drafters of the act to develop a mechanism for incorporating aboriginal traditional knowledge into COSEWIC processes through the creation of a COSEWIC subcommittee for that purpose.

We are, however, concerned about the membership of that committee. We therefore recommend that subclauses be added to clause 18 to specify that members appointed by the minister to the subcommittee be appointed upon the advice of the relevant co-management boards and aboriginal governments. The member-appointed chair of the subcommittee is a regular member of COSEWIC. We recognize our role in the process; however, there is an incremental burden that will be placed upon us by the new act should it pass, and therefore those costs should be included as the bill is resourced. Therefore, we recommend that fiscal resources associated with the implementation of Bill C-5 include those costs that will be incurred by co-management bodies as they carry out their obligations under the act.

In conclusion, co-management in the western Arctic has a 15-year history of success in the management of renewable resources that provide the underpinnings for a vibrant subsistence economy. That success has caused others from around the world to look at the co-management model and its track record to determine how it can be applied to other situations where there have been conflicts between those who depend upon the resource for their livelihood and those that have a legal responsibility for resource management.

If we are to embark upon a new era in terms of the way that we deal with species at risk in Canada, that era would be well served if the act of governing that new approach had, as one of its cornerstones, the philosophy of cooperative management. Thank you for offering us the opportunity to share these observations with you. For greater clarification of these points, I refer you to our joint submission, which has been provided to the committee. I'd be happy to answer any questions or discuss these issues with you in greater detail. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. You will find that most members, if not all members, of this committee agree with the philosophy of cooperative management, and we're glad that you brought this to the table from your perspective. Thank you.

Mr. Leas, would you like to proceed?

Mr. Daryn R. Leas (Lawyer, Council of Yukon First Nations): Thank you. On behalf of the Tlingit, Tagish, Han, Gwitchin, and Southern and Northern Tutchone First Nations, I would like to express our appreciation to the standing committee for this opportunity to present the comments and concerns of Yukon first nations with respect to Bill C-5 and species at risk.

My name is Daryn Leas, and I'm representing the Council of Yukon First Nations. As its chief legal council, I'd like to introduce Robert Jackson, who's the coordinator of the CYFN elders council. He's also been working on this file on behalf of CYFN.

At the outset, I'd like to take a moment to give the members of the standing committee some background about the CYFN. CYFN, which is the successor of the Council for Yukon Indians, was originally established in 1973 to negotiate a comprehensive land claims agreement on behalf of Yukon first nation citizens. Over time, the CYFN has evolved as a governance institution and now represents 11 of the 14 Yukon first nations on territorial, national, and international levels. The mandates of the CYFN are developed through the meetings of our leadership, which consists of the chiefs of our Yukon first nation members, or at our annual meeting of the general assembly, which is the meeting of all of our citizens of the 11 first nations.

• 0920

As with other first nations across Canada, the Yukon first nations have an intimate relationship with the land and the environment. The identity of the Yukon first nations citizens is derived from our relationship to our lands and environment. Today many of our citizens continue to harvest fish and wildlife for subsistence purposes and undertake other traditional pursuits, such as trapping.

As such, Yukon first nations citizens not only see that we have rights to the land, but we also have responsibilities and obligations owed to the land and to the environment flowing from that relationship. We believe that if we take care of the land, it will take care of us.

Yukon first nations commend Canada for its efforts to protect lands and environment through Bill C-5. With that being said, however, Yukon first nations do have concerns with respect to the approach and the implementation of Bill C-5.

As I mentioned at the outset, over the past 25 years Yukon first nations have negotiated comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements with the Government of Canada and the Yukon government. While the CYFN acknowledges the commitment made by the Minister of the Environment that every effort will be taken to ensure that land claim agreements are respected, we find that certain processes and structures of the UFA are not accommodated within the framework of Bill C-5. In our view, there is no substantive interface or nexus between Bill C-5 and the Umbrella Final Agreement.

We need to ensure that the integrity of those agreements are respected. In our view, Bill C-5 does not accommodate certain provisions and processes. We are concerned that Bill C-5 does not reflect the nature of the government-to-government relationship as set out in our agreements between Yukon first nations and the Government of Canada.

I want to explain a little bit about our Umbrella Final Agreement. The foundation of the land claim and self-government agreements in the Yukon is the Umbrella Final Agreement. The Council of Yukon First Nations, which is the organization I'm representing here today, the Government of Canada, and the Yukon government ratified the UFA in 1993. It sets out the parameters of the final self-government agreements, which will be negotiated separately with each Yukon first nation.

The UFA itself does not affect or create any legal rights; rather, it forms the bulk of the agreements that will be negotiated with each individual first nation. Its provisions are incorporated into those individual agreements, as well as specific provisions dealing with each Yukon first nation. Under the UFA, Yukon first nations retain 16,060 square miles as settlement land—approximately 10% of the area of the Yukon Territory. Upon ratification by the parties, each Yukon first nation final agreement becomes a treaty within the meaning of section 35, a land claims agreement within the meaning of section 35.

At present, seven of the 14 Yukon first nations have ratified and implemented their final self-government agreements in accordance with the Umbrella Final Agreement, and several more are expected to be concluded within the next year.

Since the provisions of the Umbrella Final Agreement are incorporated into each Yukon first nation's final agreement, our comments on the UFA are applicable to all the Yukon first nation final agreements. The UFA establishes a new relationship among the Yukon first nations, the Government of Canada, and the Yukon government. Under these new relationships, the UFA defines the processes and structures to ensure that decisions are made cooperatively. In particular, the UFA sets out how decisions will be made and by whom. These processes and structures are not only important because they reflect the interests of the parties and facilitate a cooperative approach, but also because they will be used to protect the interests and rights of the various parties.

My first specific comment about Bill C-5 deals with the limitation of our harvesting rights. At the outset of this discussion we wish to confirm the commitment of Yukon first nations to the principle of conservation. In fact, the fundamental objective of our harvesting chapter in our agreements is to ensure conservation in the management of all fish and wildlife resources in their habitats. We confirm our support for the purpose of Bill C-5 as set out in section 6.

Under the UFA, Yukon first nations citizens have the right to harvest for subsistence within their traditional territories—and with the consent of another Yukon first nation in that first nation's traditional territory—all species of fish and wildlife for themselves and their family at all seasons of the year in any numbers, on settlement land as well as on vacant crown land.

This treaty right, which is protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, is only subject to limitations prescribed in our agreements. In particular, the exercise of subsistence harvesting rights may only be limited by legislation enacted for purposes of conservation, public health, and public safety. Such legislation, however, must meet certain conditions. First, it has to be consistent with the processes and structures set out in our harvesting chapter. Second, it must be reasonably required to achieve the purposes of conservation, public health, or public safety. And lastly, it may only limit those rights to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of conservation. In addition, government must consult with the affected Yukon first nations.

• 0925

Under the UFA, the obligation on government to consult with Yukon first nations is clearly defined. The UFA defines “consult” to mean to provide:

(a) to the party to be consulted, notice of a matter to be decided in sufficient form and detail to allow that party to prepare its views on the matter; (b) a reasonable period of time in which the party to be consulted may prepare its views on the matter, and an opportunity to present such views to the party obliged to consult; and (c) full and fair consideration by the party obliged to consult of any views presented.

This definition ensures that consultation between Yukon first nations and government will be substantive and meaningful. Under Bill C-5, however, it appears that government is not obligated to consult with Yukon first nations; rather, such consultations would be undertaken with the wildlife management boards and committees established by the UFA.

For instance, under Bill C-5, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister, amend the list of wildlife species by regulation, adding a wildlife species or reclassifying a listed wildlife species. Under Bill C-5, before making such a recommendation the minister is obligated to consult with the applicable wildlife management board established by a land claims agreement. On a similar note, the minister is also obliged to consult with every other competent minister before making a recommendation to the Governor in Council that the list be amended in the circumstance of an emergency.

Although these recommendations and decisions would effectively limit our subsistence harvesting rights, Bill C-5 fails to direct the minister to consult with the affected Yukon first nations.

Now I want to explain a few things about our wildlife management boards under the Umbrella Final Agreement. There are two main bodies. The first is the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, comprised of nominees of the Yukon first nations and government on an equal basis. It is the primary instrument of fish and wildlife management in the Yukon, but for the most part, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board only makes recommendations to first nations and government.

Likewise, the renewable resource councils established under each final agreement to be the primary instrument for local renewable resources management within a traditional territory of each Yukon first nation again only make recommendations. The boards and councils established under our agreements do not make decisions. They do not have any authority to limit or regulate our subsistence harvesting rights.

In our view, Bill C-5 fails to obligate the minister, or confirm the obligation of the minister under our treaties, to consult with Yukon first nations prior to making such a recommendation, effectively limiting our harvesting rights. Therefore, we recommend that if the harvesting rights of the Yukon first nations citizens are to be limited because a species is to be listed as endangered or threatened, the minister must comply with the provisions of the UFA. First, the limitation must be justified under our agreements. Second, the minister must consult with the affected Yukon first nations in accordance with our agreements.

Now I'll move on to the role of Yukon first nations in the context of Bill C-5. Under our final agreements, Yukon first nations have substantive powers and responsibilities with respect to the management of our lands, as well as fish and wildlife matters.

For example, each Yukon first nation may manage, administer, allocate, or otherwise regulate the activities of our citizens within our traditional territories. We may also manage local populations of fish and wildlife within our settlement lands to the extent that coordination with other fish and wildlife management programs is not considered necessary by the wildlife boards. We may also participate in the management of fish and wildlife within the Yukon, and we also screen and may approve applications for fish and wildlife surveys on our settlement lands.

More significant than those powers, though, are the powers set out in our self-government agreements. We have legislative jurisdiction with respect to fish and wildlife management in our agreements. In particular, a Yukon first nation has the power to enact laws of a local or private nature on settlement land in relation to use, management, administration, control and protection of settlement land; gathering, hunting, trapping, or fishing and the protection of fish, wildlife, and habitat; planning, zoning, and land development; and finally, the control or prevention of pollution and protection of the environment.

• 0930

It should be noted that this is a bit different in the Yukon compared to other treaties that have been negotiated, that a law enacted by a Yukon first nation would prevail over a territorial law to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency. In other words, the Yukon first nation has the authority to enact legislation in relation to the protection of fish and wildlife in their habitat on our settlement land, and that law would displace any territorial law to the extent of any inconsistency or conflict.

On the federal side, we haven't been able to work out arrangements as to which law would prevail in the event of a conflict or inconsistency. Those discussions are still under way.

In any event, it is clear that Yukon first nations are one of the three orders of government in the Yukon. We have powers and responsibilities set out in our final agreement and legislative jurisdiction recognizing our self-government agreements. Therefore, the CYFN recommends that the Government of Canada consult with the Yukon first nations prior to taking action on fish and wildlife matters that may affect the Yukon first nations' management responsibilities or the exercise of harvesting rights for our citizens. It is unacceptable to consult only with the wildlife management boards and councils established under our agreements.

A general feature of Bill C-5 is that for lands and species other than those falling under federal jurisdiction, the minister has a responsibility to intervene only where he finds the measures of the provinces and territories to be inadequate with respect to the protection of critical habitat.

As stated earlier, the Yukon first nations own 16,060 square miles of settlement land, which is held in title equivalent to fee simple. Our lands are not federal lands. Again, we point out that we have broad legislative jurisdiction relating to management and protection of those lands, including the protection of fish and wildlife and their habitat located on those lands, and of course, again, such laws as enacted by a Yukon first nation would prevail over a territorial law to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency. Therefore, we recommend that the minister defer his discretion to intervene to protect critical habitat located on settlement lands unless he finds that the measures enacted by the Yukon first nations, if any, are inadequate.

The CYFN also has concerns with respect to the composition of the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.

The Chair: Considering the number of speakers this morning and the limited time available, could I perhaps ask you to compress your presentation from now on?

Mr. Daryn Leas: Sure. If you wish, in light of time, I can just go through the recommendations, and my brief will be circulated.

The Chair: Yes, that would be helpful.

Mr. Daryn Leas: Since the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council and COSEWIC may make recommendations and decisions that affect our subsistence harvesting rights, CYFN recommends that Bill C-5 be amended to provide first nation representation on the council and committee. Furthermore, we recommend that Yukon first nations nominate individuals to the minister for appointment to the council and committee, who would participate in matters related to the Yukon Territory.

Secondly, under Bill C-5, a provincial or territorial minister or the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council may recommend to the minister that critical habitat of a listed endangered species or a listed threatened species not be destroyed. We recommend that Bill C-5 be amended to allow Yukon first nations to also make such a recommendation.

With respect to traditional knowledge, CYFN proposes that any regulations or policies that are developed with respect to the collection, use, and handling of aboriginal tradition knowledge in the Yukon Territory be consistent with the guidelines that have been developed by the Council of Yukon First Nations. If you have questions about that, my colleague Mr. Jackson can answer those.

We'd like to make several comments about compensation. Compensation should apply to the settlement land retained by Yukon first nations. Compensation cannot only be calculated on the loss of monetary value of the affected property or any income loss resulting from restrictions. Like other aboriginal groups, Yukon first nations derive from our lands benefits and values that are not necessarily commercial. Such benefits include sustenance, or cultural, medicinal, and spiritual values. These values must be considered and quantified in the appraisal of the loss resulting from the restrictions of our settlement land.

Compensation must be assessed fairly, in an open and professional process at arm's length from government. The process must be and be seen to be fair and objective by the affected parties. The aboriginal working group should identify the compensation process, including the criteria for eligibility and the quantification of losses with respect to lands retained by Yukon first nations pursuant to a treaty.

• 0935

Those are my comments. I appreciate your attention. I'll be pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leas, for a very comprehensive and thorough brief, which is very helpful.

We will now invite Mr. Johnny Peters, of the Makivik Corporation, to proceed with a brief presentation.

Would you please contain your presentation to about ten minutes or so, because there are other speakers as well.

Mr. Joseph Agma (Interpreter, Makivik Corporation): As I guess everybody knows, I will be translating for Mr. Peters. He's speaking Inuktitut, and I will translate it into English. We'll try to make it as brief as possible.

Mr. Johnny Peters (Vice-President, Makivik Corporation (Interpretation)): First of all, my name is Johnny Peters. I am a vice-president of Makivik Corporation, which represents the interests of the Inuit of Nunavik, whose population is about 8,000. My mandate is that I was elected to represent them through Makivik Corporation at the present time.

I would like to mention first that as Inuit in Nunavik, we depend upon the wildlife resources for our livelihood. We depend upon the different wildlife or different species. This has traditionally been our occupation before anyone else came up to Nunavik territory. I would like to point out the different aspects of that a little bit later on.

• 0940

Also, we realize now that we don't have very much time to express our concerns. I would like to particularly mention the beluga whales we have been dependent on in Nunavik. If there is going to be some hunting restriction imposed on us, could we be granted the right to hunt somewhere other than the areas where that restriction is established?

The Inuit of Nunavik live on a seasonal basis. We are dependent upon different species of animals, depending upon the season, and so on. In summertime, we depend upon the beluga whales. The Inuit of Nunavik have expressed their concern that if some kind of legislation is imposing upon our hunting rights for beluga whales, there should be some kind of return, some form of compensation. This is something that we're not going to say for the last time. It is just the starting point we would like to mention. We will continue to express our concern until that is precisely addressed. Because we also have some concern about the population base of the particular species. I think we all have. This is not the first time we've mentioned this to this kind of meeting.

For my last point, I came from very far away, from northern Quebec, and I am very disappointed that I only have ten minutes to speak.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: We appreciate the fact that you came from far away. We apologize for the time limitations, which are due to the fact that there are so many witnesses who wish to speak to this committee.

It is my understanding that the next speaker is Robbie Watt for the Nunavik Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Association.

Mr. Robbie Watt (President, Avataq Cultural Institute): I am Robert Watt and I am representing Avataq Cultural Institute, not the HFTA.

The Chair: Fine.

Mr. Robbie Watt: Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I'm here on behalf of the elders of Nunavik. Before I get into my five minute presentation, I would like to reiterate a statement that was made during one of the elders conferences, back in 1986, by Taamusi Qumaq. As a representative for the elders, I felt that maybe it would be stronger to talk about an elder's point of view.

I want to comment concerning laws for animals first. People after us will not be able to be without laws. They need laws which are right for them, laws that they all had agreed upon, laws that they had a hand on fixing. There are young people here who hear what I'm saying and I want them to remember what I have said. Animals now have laws which we had nothing to do with, laws that had arrived from other lands, laws from the governments. Inuit should be able to control things they want, but people don't think much of the Inuit. I want our descendants to have more say concerning animals, we have no choice but to have laws now, and we need laws that the Inuit had fixed, never mind the people who will try to stop them. I want the young people not to be tired of waiting for this. It will happen someday.

• 0945

I think this is an opportunity where we can start. I wanted to stress this because one of the things a lot of the elders are concerned about is the fact that as Inuit, we have been part of the ecosystem. We have been part of all the life cycles of the seasonal animals that are growing there. The problem in regard to all this is the fact that if laws are going to be imposed on us without our collaboration, our contribution in regard to our welfare, I think it's going to have a negative impact on all parties.

Another thing I would like to stress is with regard to other animals that have been introduced to our ecosystem, muskox, for instance. They have been introduced without awareness, without proper research on the impact they will have in the future.

I really would like all parties here to be able to work together to come up with a concise and manageable law that would be beneficial to all parties.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Watt, particularly for bringing the voice of the elders to our committee.

We now have Mr. Novalinga, president of the association. Please go ahead.

Mr. Paulusi Novalinga (President, Nunavik Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Association): Thank you.

I represent the hunters of the Nunavik territory, who have been over the past few years trying to manage the beluga issue, as people are saying here. I had to come here and say I found it strange that people are saying the beluga is an endangered or a threatened species, since there has been no census since 1993. The data are years old. The reports we're getting from our local hunters say the beluga numbers are increasing. In my situation, where I have to be between the authorities and the local grassroots hunters, I don't know who to believe sometimes. I feel I should stress that there should be a census pretty soon. There should be money put aside to do a census of how many beluga there really are.

Beluga being a traditional diet for us and a very important cultural item, it's been a sensitive issue. Sometimes it's hard being a hunter and trying to be involved in the management and the conservation of this species. It's been quite difficult for me being in-between. On one hand there's the hunter, who lives off the land and is not getting any subsidies from the governments, and therefore doesn't really care if there are any laws or not, because he's up there every day, and he doesn't see any assistance or enforcement of any kind. Those guys are very likely to just do as they have been doing for thousands of years. Because there's nobody around for miles, there won't be anybody there to say they can't do that.

• 0950

It's been quite moving for me to talk about this issue since I've been talking about it for years with the so-called authorities. I feel that we should count them first before we decide if they're threatened or not.

Lastly, I'd like to stress that it's not very likely there's going to be any farming done in our region. Beluga being our traditional diet, it's something that we're going to harvest if we see them. I feel that should be taken into consideration, that there won't be any farming very likely soon in our territory.

Another thing, we are taxpayers and we are proud to be Canadian. We're paying some of the worst taxes there are in the country, and the price of our groceries is the highest, our being farther from the farm and all that. Therefore, as my friend stressed, there should be compensation if there's going to be any reduction or any kind of a moratorium on our beluga.

Traditionally, we always cared about our wildlife. We feel we are the keepers of or wildlife according to our tradition, and this has been passed down from father to son. It wasn't really written down, but we've always had traditional law, and that should be considered also.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Novalinga.

Mr. Adams, would you like to proceed?

Mr. Johnny Adams (Chairman, Kativik Regional Government): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to point out that we've submitted a joint brief to you as well. I won't get into the details because of the timeframe we have, but I'd like to just stress a few points, mainly the fact that the decline in the beluga population isn't really the result of the Inuit hunting it to extinction. It was the Hudson's Bay Company that did that for us in the 1800s and the 1900s.

We have to live with the fact of the population decline, and we're being cooperative with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in coming out with a joint management plan, which is under review at the moment. This management plan involved the communities and the hunters and trappers association. Now they're looking at even more strict guidelines in the near future.

Before we go to that, we'd like to make sure that there is a proper census done. As Paulusi pointed out, the last survey, which was incomplete, was done in 1993, and there hasn't been any follow-up. If there's going to be a census, our people will have to be involved. It has to be a joint project as well to make sure that we're there with the counts and the surveys. There's really no big problem with that as long as we're involved, to make sure that we agree on the numbers.

I'd just like to point out on the map here that this is the territory, the 14 communities along the coast. One of the scenarios they're looking at is completely closing the hunt on this side from this point to this point, and would be no beluga hunting in this area. When we're talking compensation, I don't think we're necessarily talking monetary compensation. We're maybe talking about some of these hunters being taken to other areas because of the distances and costs involved, areas where there's a larger population of belugas. If they're not on this side, then possibly they're on the Hudson Bay side, so the hunters will be able bring back meat to the communities.

• 0955

These are the types of compensation we're looking for, and we want to make sure that they're addressed in Bill C-5. It's to make sure that, as the elders were saying, it's part of the diet. Just as you have your diet, we have our diet, and there will have to be some avenues opened so there is give and take in this process. If we're going to be restricting ourselves from hunting in that area, then we should be able to be taken to another area where there are belugas.

That's it, with the short timeframe we have. Thank you very much for your time.

I'd just like to make one last point. With our regional government we have an agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where we're supposed to enforce the DFO regulations and acts through our fisheries guardians. In the years past we have been more or less observers, making sure there has been no overharvesting and so on. There has never actually been any enforcement action taken against individuals. So as with Paulusi, I'm in between the hunters and trying to enforce your regulations at the same time.

Thank you. And I hope you understand where we're coming from as well with regard to this proposed law.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Adams. We certainly are trying hard to do exactly that.

We now have a good hour for questions and answers. Before we do that, there's one member of the delegation who has been patiently sitting there. I was wondering whether Robert Jackson would like to say a word or two before we open it up for questions and answers.

Mr. Robert Jackson (Coordinator, Council of Yukon First Nations): Good morning.

I would like to touch briefly on the topic of traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge is something our people have had with them. In most cases when I make the presentation, I like to begin by asking this question: what's your view of traditional knowledge? Many times I get a very wide range of answers.

To Yukon first nations, traditional knowledge is being aware of the land, being aware of the environment, being aware of the animals, and being aware of the birds, the fish, the water, and the changes that are happening.

In the Yukon, the Council of Yukon First Nations has developed guidelines for researchers, for many times the researchers come into the communities, take the information, and go away with that information. We developed guidelines to offset that information stealing.

• 1000

Traditional knowledge is sacred to our people because of the fear that it could be taken and exploited. Our people know of medicine plants they could use. A good example is how our people know of plants they could work with to combat cancer. Now, if that were to get into the wrong hands, it could be exploited.

I can give you a good example of traditional knowledge. When we were negotiating our final agreements in the Yukon, we utilized elders. The language the elders spoke and the language the government team with the biologists spoke was one and the same. The difference was that one was learned in a technical sense and the other was learned from being in touch with the land. When you compare traditional knowledge with knowledge in the scientific world, they're one and the same. The difference is in how they're gained, how they're learned, and how they're retained.

In closing, I would like to express my thanks to the committee for allowing me to speak on the issue of traditional knowledge. I also would like to express my concern that, having travelled all the way from the Yukon, I have been given such a short time to present our views. I feel that to represent the views of the first nations of the Yukon we need more time.

Mr. Chair, I have four copies, and I'd like to leave two copies with the committee members.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. We'll certainly make sure that the copies are distributed to each member of the committee.

We now have a good hour for questions. I would ask members to keep within a limit of five minutes each. We'll start with Mr. Mills, followed by Mr. Comartin, Madame Kraft Sloan, Madame Redman, and Monsieur St-Julien, whom we welcome to the committee.

Mr. Mills, five minutes, please.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to say thank you to all the guests for being here and for giving us your views on this. I understand totally why you would want more time, having travelled that far. One of the things I'm most concerned about with our committee review of this is the short time into which we seem to be compressing things. We do need time to listen to everyone, including the farmers and ranchers and all of those people who have their concerns.

What comes to mind when I listen to you... and particularly you, Mr. Novalinga. You probaby touched me the most, because you sound like the farmers and ranchers who talk to me in my area. They understand nature. They understand the things that make nature balanced, how many cattle they can put on their land and how they must preserve certain wildlife areas to keep the balance of moisture and all of those things. Science so often fails to look at that.

I guess what troubles me most is that we would put in a piece of legislation that fails to listen to that. You know, you're looking at your part of it, but there is another part of it, the side I'm talking about. We can't have two sets of rules. We have to treat everybody equally.

I guess the most troubling thing I see in the legislation... and I understand exactly what you want. My farmers and ranchers want the same thing. They want to be treated separately. And how do we get equality into this whole thing? How do we treat everybody equal? Because if we have one set of rules for Nunavut and another set of rules for the south, how are we going to balance that?

You also talk about co-management working for 15 years. Do we need this legislation? If in fact the farmers, ranchers, Inuit, and first nations are already balancing, couldn't we work on that cooperation rather than use federal legislation?

• 1005

Finally, when it comes to compensation, I guess the people I represent are saying the same thing you are—namely, if we're going to lose something, we need to be compensated. Whether it's a loss of beluga food or a loss of ranchland to graze your cattle on, I think it's the same thing.

Those are some questions for whoever would like to tackle them.

Mr. Larry Carpenter: I will try to give you a little answer on the co-management one. I agree with you, why do we need federal legislation? Sure, we all have our concerns about species becoming extinct, but we also have territorial and provincial governments that work in the regions we represent. Right now I know that the Northwest Territories is actually trying to put forth its own species at risk legislation.

So I agree, if you have the federal government, territorial government, and aboriginal bodies working together, we should be able to do the job that this legislation is asking for.

The Chair: Any other comments?

Mr. Johnny Adams: I would like to make reference to the differences between the farmers and the Inuit of Nunavik. For example, we have protected treaty rights that don't exist in the south. That also has to be looked at to make sure that our treaty rights aren't stepped aside, because that's all we've had in exchange for the lands.

In the case of the beluga, we have to make sure that the decisions we're making are based on facts that everybody agrees with, the hunters at the grassroots level and the scientists doing the survey. I don't think we're going to try to hunt the species to extinction. That's not our way. That's not our life. But we have to find a balance. Where we do find that balance? I guess that is the main question. We've made some suggestions that some of these hunters can go to another location and then bring back the food to their communities.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To Mr. Adams and Mr. Novalinga, are first nations competing with anyone else for hunting beluga at this point? Is there any illegal hunting going on?

In terms of compensation, other than the suggestion you've made, Mr. Adams, of perhaps moving hunters to other regions—and I address this not just to you but to everybody who raised the question of compensation—are there other forms of compensation, even on a transitional or temporary basis, that could be implemented to assist?

Mr. Johnny Adams: If there's an agreement with the concept, then we'd have to get the government people and the people in the region to sit down together and work out a formula, a plan. That's the route we want to go, but we have to agree on the plan of action.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I guess I was thinking of Mr. Novalinga's point about the cost of bringing food from the south. Are there other species that could be hunted or other traditional foods that could replace the beluga, again on a temporary basis? So we're talking about importing foodstuff.

• 1010

Mr. Johnny Adams: That's right. But maybe the best thing is to import beluga from another region, in order to protect the species.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I guess that takes me to the next point: the census that several people, including you, have mentioned. Do you have any idea how long it would take to conduct that census?

Mr. Paulusi Novalinga: We have been talking about this for some time now with government officials: tax reductions on hunting equipment, reductions on fuel costs, and so on. But that's still in the paperwork. We're still talking about it. Most of it is still in negotiation.

Mr. Johnny Adams: We were talking earlier about farmers being given tax breaks on their GST and provincial tax returns. The hunters are basically our farmers in our region, but they don't have the same breaks as are given to farmers for harvesting the animals. This is an issue we've been discussing for many years, but so far it's fallen on deaf ears. As you are well aware, the cost of living up there is very high.

Mr. Paulusi Novalinga: There are also taxes on our hunting equipment, such as boats—which are considered recreational. Most of our equipment is considered sports equipment in the south, and there is a recreational tax on it. So we pay more tax on our hunting equipment like snowmobiles and powerboats, and the higher transportation costs are killing us slowly.

Mr. Joe Comartin: To follow up on the census question, do you have any idea how long it would take to conduct a new census?

Mr. Paulusi Novalinga: It's dated for next summer, next beluga season.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can you do it in one season?

Mr. Paulusi Novalinga: That depends. It would cost, but yes. The DFO is considering a census next season, this coming summer.

Mr. Joe Comartin: And the traditional hunters would be involved in that count.

Mr. Paulusi Novalinga: We have to ask to be involved, yes.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Before some members leave who have to attend the debate in the House of Commons, I need some assistance from the committee in its quorum formation to adopt a motion that would allow three or four of our colleagues to attend the OECD conference—as we discussed in previous meetings.

The clerk has prepared a motion, which he will read. Then I will ask for someone to move it, in the hope of speeding things up.

Mr. Clerk, would you like to read it?

The Clerk of the Committee: It reads:

That the Committee adopt the budget in the amount of $17,414 for the purpose of travel to Paris, France, from May 13 to 17, 2001, to attend an OECD conference on environmental and economic issues.

The Chair: The amount is not 70 but 17—one, seven.

Would someone move that motion?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we move to Madam Kraft Sloan, followed by Madam Redman, Mr. St-Julien, and Senator Watt.

Madam Kraft Sloan, please. Ten minutes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I had a couple of questions with regard to the Council of Yukon First Nations' brief, but I would welcome any other witnesses to comment where they see fit.

• 1015

My first question has to do with the recommendation on page 11, which states:

Therefore, the CYFN recommends that the Minister defer his discretion to intervene to protect critical habitats located on Settlement Lands unless he finds that the measures enacted by the Yukon First Nations, if any, are inadequate.

There was some discussion in the brief about the safety net provision for the federal government to step in, if it feels the provinces are not adequately safeguarding protected species. The main problem with the safety net is that it's discretionary, not mandatory, for the federal government to act if the provinces are not acting.

The second huge problem is what does it really mean? What is the real trigger here? I wonder if someone would like to comment on what “inadequate” means, in terms of possible timelines and actions taken. I think you can appreciate that if things are not clear, one side can argue that adequate action is being taken, and the other side can argue that not enough adequate action is being taken. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr. Daryn Leas: Thank you for your question.

One of the main points we're trying to get across in our brief is that Yukon first nations have jurisdiction without responsibilities, and jurisdiction that goes beyond the territorial jurisdiction. So we see certain relationships between the federal minister and the Yukon territorial government, and we feel that the same relationship should be extended to Yukon first nations.

I assume the trigger would be some first nations enacting legislation—and some have already done this—to protect critical areas of their settlement lands. Before the federal minister exercises his or her discretion to impose a restriction for critical habitat on our settlement lands—not just looking at the territorial laws to see if they meet his or her view of what is adequate—the minister should also look at what laws the Yukon first nations have enacted.

What is “inadequate”? You're right, there could be some ambiguity and discussion about that. But that's probably a larger issue between the federal government and the provinces and territories. I think those sorts of issues are resolved, like any other issues between governments, by way of discussion.

Maybe the federal minister wishes a specific amendment to the Yukon first nations law, or provincial law, or territorial law. Those sorts of discussions would probably resolve the minister's concerns. Then, if the first nation, the province, or the territorial government doesn't do it, the federal minister is obliged to step in. That's what we see.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: From many people's perspective, the problem is that the federal government has not stepped in where this discretion would have allowed it. We can look for this kind of clause in many pieces of legislation the provinces have enacted, and the federal government has never acted. I wondered if your comments could help to illuminate the process, so we would have a better understanding of where there are problems.

Mr. Larry Carpenter: The only comment I can make is that we support the objective of this legislation. We firmly believe that if the Yukon territorial government or the Yukon first nations are not taking steps to protect critical habitat, then it's incumbent upon the federal government to do so. It's their responsibility. The relationship between the Yukon government and the federal government, particularly, is not a section 92 government. It's a creation of the Yukon Act, which is a federal statute.

In the context of the Yukon, this discussion is complicated because of a devolution, a proposed transfer of authority over lands and resources in the Yukon from the federal government to the territorial government. We're anxious about this, and we want to make sure that if authority is transferred, the federal government will backstop any shortcomings of the territorial government.

Our perspective is that we're certainly going to enact legislation to protect the critical habitats located in our 16,000 square miles of settlement land. And we hope the federal government will ensure that the same thing happens on the Yukon's non-settlement lands.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: And would you include enforcement as part of “adequate measures”?

Mr. Larry Carpenter: Absolutely.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay.

The Chair: Madam Redman, please.

• 1020

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to direct my question to Mr. Carpenter.

To develop the species-at-risk legislation we're discussing today, Environment Canada has worked really hard to maintain an open dialogue with both aboriginal people and wildlife management boards. There have been many bilateral and multilateral meetings. The federal government intends to maintain this open dialogue as we continue to develop and implement this legislation.

I wonder if you can compare the progress of the species-at-risk legislation so far to other pieces of legislation. Has it been a good process?

Mr. Larry Carpenter: What other federal legislation are you talking about?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Previous aboriginal representatives have told us that in some ways this raised the bar. Other witnesses said they felt it was a good dialogue.

Mr. Larry Carpenter: Where we come from, we like the fact that there is an aboriginal working group. Some Inuvialuit members have attended that.

I'm representing one of the co-management boards at this meeting, and not just the Inuvialuit Game Council—the wildlife body for our region. So I can say that one problem is that the wildlife management advisory council, the co-management bodies, have actually had very little to do with this process. We do have federal members on our committee, who should be making reports, but they're almost as in the dark as we are. But we are able to be involved through the aboriginal working group, which is a great help. And compared to other legislation, yes, that part is a lot better.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you for inviting the people of Nunavik.

There are two questions I'd like to ask. The first is for Johnny Adams, Chairman of the Kativik Regional Administration. In your evidence, you spoke of the 1993 census, which was incomplete. We all know that Nunavik covers approximately 500,000 square kilometers. The 14 communities there are not linked by roads and we also know that under your administration the Inuit of Nunavik pay taxes like citizens in the south do. They pay taxes on all foodstuffs just like citizens in the south.

There was a census eight years ago and you mentioned that there had been no follow-up. I would like to know who carried out that census and whether, within the last few years, any federal or provincial public servants, or the minister, have visited the Inuit communities in order to find out about the species at risk and other species living within your territory.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, if you have any questions to ask, I would rather they were questions having to do with this bill.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Alright, concerning the species at risk and so on. That is why I mentioned—

The Chair: Alright.

[English]

Mr. Adams.

Mr. Johnny Adams: It was strictly an aerial survey, and I was very dependent upon the weather and observers. No corresponding ground observations were done to validate the census. So now, I think the idea for this coming summer is to have both aerial and ground surveys. The local people are trying to be involved in the process.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: My last question is for you. We will then go on to Johnny Peters.

• 1025

Mr. Adams, do you intend to present a detailed and descriptive brief this bill? I know that you have not had much time within the last few days and that this is an important issue. Do you intend to draft, for the committee, a detailed document concerning these issues in Nunavik?

[English]

Mr. Johnny Adams: I'm sure if we're given the opportunity, we would be able to submit more of a detailed brief than the ones we submitted, because we're basically given a few short days to come up with a brief.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Adams. My last question, Mr. Chairman, is for Johnny Peters who is vice-president of the Makivik Corporation of Nunavik.

All you witnesses, Joseph Agma, Paulusi Novalinga, Robbie Watt or Johnny Adams, spoke of an allowance. I know that the plight of the beluga, in Nunavik, is an issue related to the present bill. The two governments are trustees under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. When you mention an allowance, in your brief, are you thinking of the Convention regarding James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement?

[English]

Mr. Johnny Peters (Interpretation): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

As I mentioned earlier, Inuit are heavily dependent upon the beluga whales for their diet. The Inuit depend upon the beluga on a seasonal basis. For example, summer is the hunting season for beluga. Even at other seasons, when there are not too many beluga in the area, the Inuit wish to have to have the beluga diet, at all times. That's the point I was trying to make.

We also had some discussions with DFO through the HFTA and Makivik, in our joint meetings. We were told by DFO that in Nunavik coastal areas there are plenty of beluga in certain areas, while in other areas there are not too many. That was based on research done back in 1993. If DFO put a moratorium on certain areas, for example in Ungava Bay, could we be granted by DFO the right to hunt elsewhere, let's say besides the Churchill, Manitoba, where there are lots of belugas. So Johnny Adams mentioned earlier, we need some kind of formal compensation for the costs related to going there and back to bring some food home. Would that be open to discussion? This was the kind of example I was trying to raise.

So there's the present discussion between DFO and the Inuit on a research basis, as to exactly how they can come up with a better understanding, to have the Inuit directly involved in their research. What we're doing right now is trying to put the Inuit knowledge into that context, alongside scientific knowledge, so that both sides appreciate the real need to understand the beluga species.

• 1030

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

[English]

We now go to Senator Watt, followed by Mr. Laliberte, and then we'll have a second round.

Senator Charlie Watt (Inkerman, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the Nunavik people who made the presentation, according to your brief, you emphasize supporting the proposed recommendations that were tabled by your national organization, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. You seem to be emphasizing that part quite heavily. And I believe there were more than 10 proposed amendments to the piece of legislation, Bill C-5. And then, again in your brief, you seem to be emphasizing two areas, mostly a non-derogation clause, and you feel that in Bill C-5 the non-derogation clause does not go far enough in protecting the constitutional rights of the aboriginal people. If I understood correctly, that is what you're basically saying here.

The other point you're emphasizing, focusing more on what is a part of a bill itself, deals with the beluga. And one of the reasons, if I understand correctly, is that this is a very heavily utilized resource in the community, throughout the whole Nunavik, and therefore you are looking for some answers to that particular problem. And the scientific community is emphasizing to you that the belugas on the Ungava side are moving in the direction of diminishing or being no longer there.

So the scientific community and traditional knowledge, to a certain extent, might differ in the interpretation of that aspect. When I was participating at your workshop policy, Novalinga, your people were emphasizing the fact that it's not because of overhunting in the Ungava Bay that took place over the last 10 to 12 years—or 20 years for that matter—but it's to do with the noise more than anything else that the beluga have shifted their migrations, cutting across from Killiniq to Port Burwell, in other words, without going down to the bottom of Ungava Bay. That is basically what is happening, if I understood correctly.

So you are facing the problem now that you are being asked by the DFO no longer to hunt in Ungava Bay, which you have to rely on pretty heavily for your food. This is not only a part of your diet, but it's your livelihood, to cut the costs of the foods that have to be imported from south to the north. This is one of the reasons, if I understand correctly, Mr. Peters, the vice-president of Makivik Corporation, was emphasizing that there has to be some solution, if there are going to be reductions. How are we going to replace that? This is our food source. This is our bread and butter. How is that going to be compensated for. Does the DFO or any governmental instrument have the authority to provide compensation?

In the bill itself, subclause 64(1)says:

The Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application...

Under “Regulations” it then says:

The Governor in Council may make regulations that the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purposes and provisions of subsection (1), including regulations prescribing...

and then it sets out the various procedures.

Does any one of you... I know you're related to Senator Adams, Johnny. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on that, or Mr. Peters. What do you want the committee to do on that particular aspect?

The Chair: Since this has taken the full time allocated to the senator, please give a brief reply.

Mr. Johnny Adams: Yes. Thank you.

• 1035

With regard to the compensation aspect, we're asking for some guidance and solutions from this committee to make sure there'll be a provision in there. We're being asked to stop the hunting on the Ungava coast even this coming summer, but we don't have anything in place. No discussions are ongoing at the moment. There is no agreement. We're willing to go along with it provided it's supported by both parties, the Inuit and DFO. It's just in the discussion stage right now. One of the main reasons we wanted to come here was to get at least some indication from the committee that this in fact would be given priority, because it's supposed to be implemented this coming summer to restrict more of the hunting in the Ungava especially. We're talking about seven communities.

The Chair: Mr. Adams, if you're seeking any kind of indication as to what to do in relation to next summer, the approach available to you at any time is to make a submission to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with regard to your proposal regardless of this piece of legislation. Once this piece of legislation is proclaimed, which may be several months from now, it will not contain the regulations emanating from the compensation clause. The compensation is very broad, as it was read by the senator and as it is before you in the bill. Once that becomes law, regulations will be written, as we understand it at least and as we are being told at the present time. That will also take sometime. Therefore, if it is an issue that you want to present this summer, you should proceed and make your case, so to say, with Fisheries and Oceans regardless of this legislation. Perhaps you should be involved at the time the regulations are being written, which will happen later on. But if there is a problem that needs attention on an urgent basis this summer, you should proceed regardless of this legislation, because we are not there yet, if you understand what I mean.

Mr. Johnny Adams: Yes, I understand perfectly. We're trying to proceed in that direction, but we need some support from the elected officials around this table. Ultimately, it will reach you in one way or another.

The Chair: Your elected officials from the regions affected will certainly make representations and very strongly so, and everybody will hear Mr. St-Julien in the House of Commons, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here to help guide us through this adventurous journey.

I want to focus on a couple of items. An interesting comparison between farmers and hunters was brought to us. Also, in previous submissions the Yukon representative mentioned that the Wildlife Management Board has a specific purpose, which is resource management. It's like the resource officers, and it involves that whole aspect of wildlife and resource management.

But there's a whole new context of treaty and land claims agreements that has an aboriginal governance definition. It's totally different from a Wildlife Management Board definition. An important part of this bill is the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. On that conservation council are representatives of the ministries of the provinces and three competent ministers federally, from the Department of Fisheries, Heritage Canada, and Environment Canada. One of the aboriginal leaders mentioned that maybe the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should be included in that.

• 1040

Are you satisfied that the ministers will represent our views at that council, or should there be a recognition of the aboriginal leadership in this country to be represented at that level?

Mr. Johnny Adams: I think it's an easy answer for us. We're always fighting for more representation for aboriginal people in the governance of the country, especially on the committees that have an impact on our lives and our livelihoods. In this case it wouldn't be any different. There's also a national committee on endangered species, which we're not part of. I can only speak on behalf of our region, but I think we should at least have a representative on these committees, especially when we're talking about our region probably being severely impacted in terms of the activities we're able to partake in with regard to beluga, for instance. For sure, we would like more representation on these committees.

Mr. Daryn Leas: Certainly in the Yukon we've been consistent in our call for representation on COSEWIC as well as the council. We have, as you pointed out, our own governments, and we feel we're best suited to represent our own interests, rather than having another government speak on behalf of something as fundamental as our harvesting rights.

Mr. Larry Carpenter: I agree with what they're both saying. The only thing I can add to that is that I think these different committees should be based on regions and the different aboriginal groups that are going to be affected by that certain species. They're the ones who should be helping to make the decisions. There are a lot of differences between how the Inuvialuit and the western Arctic view a certain species compared with a southern native person.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The other issue I've looked at is compensation. That's where this hunter and farmer concept changes. In the farmer context there's the title of farm lands and property around a farmer. Compensation would be individual property compensation. If there is expropriation of property, there would be compensation for that. But in the northern hunter context it's more of a collective perspective. It's not compensation for individuals who may lose the hunt. It's more of the village and the sustainability of the collective for that people. So it's a totally different context. You can't compare the hunter and the farmer in the same context. It's totally different, if you look at it in different phases and definitions and individual and collective.

• 1045

Mr. Johnny Peters (Interpretation): In terms of compensation, you were saying that if you were a farmer and your farm was damaged, you would probably ask for individual compensation. But in our region, in our territory, the hunting is our farm. If a certain species of animal were in any way in decline or damaged because of over-exploitation, we would definitely have to ask for community-wide compensation. It's not just one hunter, it's all the Inuit hunters. That's why we are here today. If we were farmers like people down south, I don't think we'd be here. You have to understand that two distinct elements are here. One is traditional hunters, up there where there are no farms and we cannot grow anything, and the only growing we have is the reproduction of the animals. That's the difference.

If it is the case that a certain species we depend upon happened to decline, then we will have to ask for something in return in order for us to continue our livelihood. That's the difference between the two.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Johnny Peters: I think a part was missed in interpreting that. I meant that our hunters have no jobs and no choice. The only way to survive is to catch some animals.

If the effect of that damage is that they cut down the government quota on animals like the beluga and you can't hunt them any more, we will need compensation for sure, as with farming.

The Chair: Thank you.

Here's the second round. We can start with Mr. Comartin, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I just have two quick questions for you, Mr. Adams. Do we know the numbers beluga whales have to get back to so you can go back to conventional, traditional hunting? Has that number been...

Mr. Johnny Adams: No. There's an estimate, but there isn't really anything concrete at the moment because there hasn't been a proper census in this area.

Mr. Joe Comartin: You made a point earlier, and I wasn't sure what it was. You were trying to say something I didn't understand at the time about enforcement. There was no enforcement even though that had been passed on to you as your responsibility, but you were observing. Can you expand on that a little? I didn't quite understand that.

Mr. Johnny Adams: Yes. I said earlier that we have an agreement between our regional government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans where we employ six fishery guardians, who are basically there to observe the harvest of the beluga in the area. They have two boats for a very long coastline, and basically they're there to make sure that there is no slaughter of beluga by anybody, not only by the Inuit from our region but from other regions as well.

In the case of the fisheries guardians there has never been a case of anyone charged with any infraction over the years. There was one investigation in the past, but there were no charges laid. It was suspected there was overharvesting of beluga in one particular area, but nothing was done about this. DFO is aware of this file. That's the only major file we've had over the years. Basically, most of the communities are respecting the quota. Some are under and some go a bit over, but the harvest numbers have remained more or less stable since the quota system was introduced.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin. Is that all?

Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: Madam Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

I was wondering, Mr. Jackson, if you wanted to come back to the table. You may want to respond to a couple of questions I have. I also invite the other witnesses to respond as well.

On the issue regarding traditional knowledge, I think what you said was very important because people have different understandings of traditional knowledge. Certainly I have heard people around this table echoing different understandings of traditional knowledge as well.

• 1050

I also share your concerns about appropriation of or stealing traditional knowledge from community people; I also share the concern you have about how it might be used. I'm just wondering if you or any of the other witnesses might like to comment on some of the guidelines that were mentioned by you as well as in the Council of Yukon First Nations brief. You said that there are guidelines that have been developed and that you would like to see these more in sync with the legislation and what we're doing.

I'm just wondering if you'd like to expand a little on some of the guidelines you think are important concerning use of traditional knowledge.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Thank you.

In terms of trying to respond to the issue of guidelines to be used, to be quite frank, I think it would take more than the time allocated to me to walk you through the whole document. These guidelines lay out the process as to how traditional knowledge could be used, how it could be collected, and how it could be stored.

Traditional knowledge is something that could not be explained in the timeframe I was given. It is something that is sacred. Traditional knowledge is something about respecting and protecting the land, and it connects us to the land. To utilize the guidelines... it lays out step by step how traditional knowledge is used.

To take the issue of traditional knowledge a step further, I will relate to you an incident that happened to me and my parents early on in my life. We were out in the bush going to our trapline, but because of foul weather we got hung up. The ice at the time did not allow our boat to go any farther, yet the ice was not thick enough to walk on. We camped, and during that stay in the camp both my parents got sick to a point where they told me, “Go back home, son, we're too sick to make it; tell our people that we gave up and we died.”

At that point I was only 18 or 19. When you are told that by your parents, something in you carries you back to the land and to the teachings your parents and your grandparents gave you. I told my parents at that time, “No, I will not leave. I'll get the balsam and the acorn and red alder to make medicine for you.” I said “I will get you one rabbit, one grouse, whatever to make you better”.

• 1055

Land to Yukon first nations people is not only a provider, it is also is a healer of our people. That's why we say, when you use traditional knowledge, respect it because it is something our people grew up with. It is not something you can learn in a technical sense. Traditional knowledge is something that is handed down orally. Traditional knowledge is a tool of survival, so to do justice to our guidelines, we need more than five minutes to explain them.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Have you had examples of situations where you find your guidelines have been successful in preserving traditional knowledge and having it used appropriately? Can you point to some examples of that, ones where you've been able to use your guidelines?

Mr. Robert Jackson: The only one I can think of at this point in time is where there was a lot of research work carried on in the Yukon, but in terms of success and these guidelines, I can't think of any. If these guidelines had been developed years ago, the information that was gathered from our elders would not be lost.

Oftentimes that information is taken from our people, and many people have gained by using traditional knowledge. A lot of people from southern Canada have gained academic advancement by using traditional knowledge, by coming to our communities and doing their thesis papers on northern living.

I think if this committee were to use these guidelines within the context of Bill C-5, it would make the work that much easier.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Peters.

Mr. Darryn Leas: I'm sorry. It's Darryn Leas.

I just want to make one comment about the guidelines. Those guidelines were developed largely in response to demands for information with respect to environmental assessment in the Yukon. A lot of information from our communities wasn't getting into the environmental assessment process, and people were reluctant to provide that to the assessment process because there was no control over the information and how it would be used, and in some cases the information was confidential.

What our brief is hopefully speaking to is that it's great COSEWIC is directed to taking into account that knowledge. However, in order to get that knowledge into COSEWIC so it can come forward forthwith, the first nations communities are going to have to see some guidelines, that is, some direction as to how that information is going to be used, stored, and handled.

Thank you.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's that building of trust issue.

Mr. Darryn Leas: That's right.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

This brings us to a conclusion. We've had our two hours. We agree with you that many more hours could be spent together in listening to each other. Nevertheless, there are certain limitations on our time because of other commitments.

• 1100

On behalf of the members of the committee I would like to thank each one of you for bringing your opinions, views, perspectives, and advice here. We will certainly keep them in mind when we go through the bill clause by clause. In the meantime, as discussed earlier, if there should be an issue arising this summer in relation to hunting shortages or a species crisis, you should proceed through the normal channels as you have so far until this legislation is in place. As to compensation, it may be desirable for organizations in the north to participate in that process at the time the regulations are written.

Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.