ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 25, 2002

0905

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.))

Mr. Michael Cox (Director of Environmental Services, Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq)

0910

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

National Chief Matthew Coon Come (Assembly of First Nations)

0915

0920

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. David Walkem (Forestry Coordinator, Nicola Tribal Association)

0925

0930

0935

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Jose Kusugak (President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Natan Obed (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami)

0940

0945

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich--Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

0950

Chief Matthew Coon Come

Mr. Natan Obed

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

0955

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. David Walkem

1000

1005

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Jamie Kneen (Technical Adviser, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor--St. Clair, NDP)

Chief Matthew Coon Come

Mr. Joe Comartin

Chief Matthew Coon Come

1010

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. David Walkem

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Jamie Kneen

1015

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.)

1020

Mr. Natan Obed

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Chief Matthew Coon Come

Mr. Alan Tonks

1025

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Chief Matthew Coon Come

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Jose Kusugak

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. David Walkem

1030

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

Mr. David Walkem

Mrs. Karen Redman

Chief Matthew Coon Come

1035

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Jamie Kneen

1040

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Michael Cox

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. David Walkem

Chief Matthew Coon Come

1045

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Natan Obed

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Jose Kusugak

1050

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1055

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Michael Cox

1100

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. David Walkem

Mr. Joe Comartin

Chief Matthew Coon Come

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

1105

Mr. David Walkem

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Michael Cox

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Jamie Kneen

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Lawrence Ignace (Advisor, Assembly of First Nations)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

1110

Mr. David Walkem

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Michael Cox

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

Mr. Jamie Kneen

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 068

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)): I see that we have a quorum of members.

We have the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, the Assembly of First Nations, the Nicola Tribal Association, and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. I'd like to welcome all of you here on this very important subject, Bill C-19.

If we can, we'll hear from the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq. Michael Cox, please.

Mr. Michael Cox (Director of Environmental Services, Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq): Thank you. My name is Michael Cox. I'm with the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq, and we're located in Millbrook, Nova Scotia. The confederacy is a tribal council. We have six bands or six communities on the mainland of Nova Scotia.

Although I'm here to talk to you today about Bill C-19, I thought I'd take the opportunity to describe how environmental assessments are done on reserves today. I'd like to talk to you about some of the amendments to Bill C-19 that can change how assessments are done today, and if Bill C-19 is passed what the future might hold.

On reserves today, CEAA largely does not apply. The reason it does not apply is because of subsection 10(2), otherwise known as the funding gap. Basically what the funding gap states is that funding cannot be the only trigger for assessments on reserves, which is unique to Indian lands in Canada.

To compensate for that gap, I guess, the agency created an MOU with all federal departments. The MOU simply stated that if you fund a project on reserve, you will conduct an environmental assessment with the spirit and intent of CEAA in mind--basically, policy assessments. This created a whole bunch of different policy assessment processes for a bunch of different departments. It created a lot of confusion and a lot of misunderstanding for first nation communities to deal with.

For example, the Department of Indian Affairs created a transfer payment directive, which basically stated that if you fund a project on reserve, you will conduct an environmental assessment, and they passed that onus on to the first nation community--in other words, the terms and conditions of funding, another one.

First nations were never involved in this policy development. There was no input by first nations. There were no resources given to first nations, and there was no training given to first nations to do this function. So it has been a very frustrating, confusing time since January 19, 1995.

On reserves today, how things basically play out is that the Department of Indian Affairs or another department provides funding, the bands do a quasi environmental assessment and provide the assessment back to Indian Affairs, Indian Affairs gives it to Public Works and Government Services Canada, it's reviewed, it's redone, it's given back to Indian Affairs, and it's signed off. It's a very cumbersome process. Why they dictate to the bands to do them when they redo them anyway, we're not sure.

As to Bill C-19 and some of the changes that could affect how things are being done today, as proposed in the amendments, the funding gap under subsection 10(2) will be closed. This will create one process for first nations communities to have to deal with, and that's CEAA. So that's a good thing.

It will also increase the quality and integrity of assessments that are done on reserves, because policy assessments never go through the hoops, let's say, that a CEAA requirement does. For example, it never goes through a public participation process. In CEAA, it will. So we feel that this is a good thing.

The confederacy feels that another good thing is paragraph 59(l), which states that first nations can create their own regulation under CEAA for their own environmental regime. We feel that this a tremendous opportunity, because we're doing them anyway. We're not getting funding for them. If we had our own regulation, maybe we could get funded to do this process in a community-based, community-driven approach that would be a win-win situation for everybody.

I'm not sure what the future holds, but I think it's probably one of two things. The status quo can continue. The Department of Indian Affairs can continue to dictate to first nations communities through terms and conditions of funding, and say if you want your money you will conduct an environmental assessment.

¿ (0910)

They will increase their reliance on Public Works and Government Services Canada. They will use any additional in-house resources in a sort of screening process. They never actually do the assessments, they review, so the in-house resources they have are strictly for review purposes. It never gets down to the people who actually do the assessments. That can continue to happen. What we'd like to see happen is that maybe a program could be set up so a community-based approach could be generated.

Even a tribal council the size of the confederacy does not get any dollars from Indian Affairs to do any environmental work. That includes assessments. That includes everything else I do on a regular basis. We have to be very crafty with funding to be able to be there, and if Indian Affairs wants this service to be done, we feel that they should be paying for it. We're ready, willing, and able to do that. We just need to convince the Department of Indian Affairs that we exist and that we can provide this function.

That's all I have to say.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Cox.

Now we will hear from National Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Assembly of First Nations. Welcome.

National Chief Matthew Coon Come (Assembly of First Nations): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. I want to thank the members of the standing committee for this opportunity to speak to you today.

The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing first nations peoples in Canada. As national chief, I am elected by the first nations chiefs across the country, who in turn are duly elected by their citizens. Our people live in first nations communities, in rural areas, in the north, and in urban centres. Regardless of where we've chosen to live, land and the environment have always been central to first nations peoples in our world view.

Today we are tabling the Assembly of First Nations submission on Bill C-19, amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Our submission is built on AFN's consultations, which we conducted as part of CEAA's regular five-year review process. We met with representatives from regional aboriginal organizations, community workers, technicians, first nations leaders, and members of the Assembly of First Nations environment committee. Our consultations were thorough and substantive. The findings were tabled as part of a formal review process. Unfortunately, we do not see our views or our words reflected in the bill before us today. I know a number of other aboriginal organizations that took part feel the same way.

If consultation is going to be real and meaningful, it has to be about more than process. It has to be about results. The product is as important as the process. This is especially true when the crown is dealing with first nations, because we have a fiduciary relationship. The fiduciary relationship must be respected whenever an agent of the crown is exercising authority in a way that could affect first nations. The fiduciary relationship is government-wide. It is not simply between first nations and Indian Affairs; it is between first nations and Canada.

When we are dealing with lands and the environment, whether provincial or federal crown lands, the rights of first nations must be recognized and our participation must be respected. There's a clear legal duty to consult when it comes to our treaty lands or lands under aboriginal title. We have certain rights we can exercise on those lands, and the crown cannot unilaterally infringe on these rights. The government has to recognize that first nations are not just another special interest group.

First nations are seeking a government-to-government relationship with Canada. This is true of all our dealings, and no less so when it comes to lands and the environment. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 recognizes aboriginal governments as equal partners, but Canada has to do more to ensure that aboriginal values are incorporated into Canadian law and recognize aboriginal environmental jurisdiction. We are a third order of government, not a third party.

The government generally gives us an aboriginal table during these review processes, but at times that only works to marginalize our views. We know a lot of hard bargaining and decision-making on lands and the environment take place at the provincial-federal table. We maintain that first nations must be at that table whenever crown lands are being discussed. This would be an intergovernmental table, an open forum for the key stakeholders. It would ensure the key parties are onside when priorities are set and decisions are made. This kind of open communication has the added benefit of building better relationships and making any implementation activities smoother and more efficient.

Our submission covers these broad points, but it also provides, through its specific recommendations, revisions and amendments to address these broader points. Our approach is aimed at developing a new relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples by incorporating our values within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Part of this work means reorienting the act. Right now the key underlying value seems to be the predominance of development. We believe the focus of the act should be environmental stewardship and protection.

I will not read you the entire submission. I do want to cover three key policy principles that inform our submission. These key principles emerged from our consultations with first nations and guide all our recommendations.

¿ (0915)

The first principle is the recognition and respect for the inherent and equal authority of first nations to establish environmental assessment regimes that apply not only to reserve lands but more generally to lands under aboriginal title and our traditional territories. These environmental assessment regimes must take a broader view of what we call environmental impacts. Potential environmental impacts have to include social and economic impacts on our way of life and equally important impacts on our ability to pursue our traditional ways of life.

We believe the preamble to Bill C-19 is a logical step to start with if we are going to reorient the bill. We've included our recommended amendments to the preamble along with some changes to the definitions.

On a related point, our submission includes an annex from the recent report on the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. This group is part of the United Nations Environment Programme, which just wrapped up their sixth meeting in The Hague on April 19.

The annex we are attaching is a decision endorsed by the signatories, including Canada. The recommendation is aimed at facilitating first nations involvement in environmental assessments where developments are being proposed that affect traditional territories. Territories include lands, waters, and sacred sites. This recommendation states that impact assessments must take into account social and cultural concerns as well as environmental concerns.

There is much more detail in the annex, but it's consistent with our recommendations, and we attach it for the committee's information.

The second principle we put forth is that aboriginal law and aboriginal environmental values and principles must be integrated into the substance of Canadian law. Federal law needs to reflect first nations perspectives on core concepts like sustainable development and environmental impacts. This is consistent with the commitment Canada made in signing the United Nations Rio Declaration of 1992, and the declaration is included as an appendix to our submission.

We are really only urging the government to act on its commitment and to honour these international obligations. Again, our submission provides for a number of ways to bring this principle into effect.

The third and final principle is the need to address funding and capacity building to support first nations environmental jurisdiction. I realize we are talking today about amendments to legislation, but resourcing the capacities for first nations has always been a neglected issue under the Environmental Assessment Act. First nations must have the capacity to participate in environmental assessment activities as full and equal partners with other levels of government.

As it stands, the majority of first nations do not even have minimal capacities. Most do not even have an environmental manager or a resource person to provide the necessary technical support, yet there are situations under this act where the responsibility for an environmental assessment falls to the first nation.

Now, our goals here are not mutually exclusive. Land management and environmental assessment are areas where first nations want to assume more responsibility from the federal government. The first nations want this kind of training and resourcing. We need to dedicate our efforts to capacity building and technical support at community-level environment-management work. Otherwise, the act is little more than an empty statement of good intentions. Let's give life to those good intentions.

Our submission outlines two new sections that will work to achieve this goal. The aim is to ensure that first nations and governments have the necessary capacity and decision-making capabilities to implement the proposed amendments. In a broader sense, building capacities and strengthening human and technical resources work to achieve our shared goal of economic development and training.

The three principles I've outlined are all interrelated. They build on and strengthen one another, and we urge the committee to give them serious consideration.

The final point I want to highlight is our recommendation on amending and clarifying proposed section 16.1. This section needs to be strengthened so community knowledge and traditional aboriginal knowledge are more than simply a consideration in the environmental assessment. There must be a clear commitment to incorporate first nations values into the substance of the law itself, otherwise we run the risk of trivializing or marginalizing the first nations intellectual traditions.

¿ (0920)

We're not recommending that the inclusion of traditional knowledge be mandatory in assessment. This is simply to recognize that some elders who are knowledge keepers may be reluctant to disclose their knowledge, for personal, spiritual, or cultural reasons, and that has to be respected.

I thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I hope you will review our submission closely and receive it in the spirit intended. Our work at the Assembly of First Nations is about building bridges of understanding between first nations people and all Canadians, about recognizing our strengths and what we can offer to one another.

When it comes to lands and the environment, first nations are the bridge between traditional knowledge and contemporary science. We stand in both worlds and see the connections at all points on the continuum. That, as much as anything, is why we need meaningful consultations and continuing dialogue. We want to move forward together in the spirit of mutual respect and recognition. That is our responsibility to our people today and to future generations.

With that, I thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Chief Coon Come.

Now we'd like to hear from David Walkem, with the Nicola Tribal Association. Welcome.

Mr. David Walkem (Forestry Coordinator, Nicola Tribal Association): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the rest of the committee for allowing me to be here.

My name is David Walkem. I'm chief of the Cook's Ferry Band of the Nlaka'pamux Nation and the forestry coordinator for the Nicola Tribal Association. The Nicola Tribal Association is comprised of six Nlaka'pamux bands: the Lower Nicola, Coldwater, Nooaitch, Shackan, Cook's Ferry and Siska Bands, and one Okanagan Band, the Upper Nicola Band.

These bands have traditional homelands located primarily in the Nicola Valley and along the Fraser River and Thompson River in the southern interior of British Columbia. We are located approximately three hours northeast of Vancouver and one hour southwest of Kamloops. We have a population of over 3,000 Nlaka'pamux and Okanagan people living in the reserve communities, and we make up approximately 25% of the people in the Merritt area.

Our membership have been involved in a number of joint business ventures, own properties and businesses, and are involved in a number of forestry and fisheries activities. For instance, we are involved in fisheries management through our Nicola Watershed Stewardship and Fisheries Authority, which employs up to 60 people in fisheries habitat management issues.

We have also established a Tmixw Research group within our agency that has the purpose of gathering and using traditional knowledge in our governance processes. Tmixw Research seeks to incorporate two opposing scientific world views of western science and indigenous science through the integration of traditional knowledge and contemporary approaches.

I give that to you as a background on the experiences we've had in various development processes.

I have two reasons for appearing this morning. First, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act has important ramifications on our lives. We feel it is important to work with other governments to bring about positive change. Adopting our recommendations will ensure proper measures are undertaken to protect the environment and our relationship to our homelands within Canada for all time. Our participation here is a desire to improve the existing environmental assessment processes, to better reflect our interests and those who have chosen to live and develop within our homelands.

Second, we wish to show support for the issues and recommendations presented by the AFN. In particular, we wish to emphasize the importance of the following issues and recommendations put forward by the AFN. First is the recognition of aboriginal rights, title and jurisdiction. Second is the recognition of the value of traditional knowledge. Third is the meaningful participation of first nations in the environmental assessment processes. Fourth is funding of first nations participation. I will deal with each in turn.

On the recognition of aboriginal rights, title and jurisdiction, the existing act does not recognize our interests in our homelands. It only restricts us to Indian reserves and other lands referred to in claim agreements with the federal government. Processes such as this need to acknowledge and create the environment to clarify these issues of aboriginal rights and title. Ignoring them will only create problems in the future. Recognition of aboriginal rights, title and jurisdiction is the first requirement for achieving meaningful participation of first nations in any of these processes.

We agree with the recommendation that government-to-government processes are needed. The scope of the environmental assessments needs to be broadened to recognize first nations as one of the responsible authorities, and trigger federal fiduciary obligations on provincial developments that do not currently get reviewed by this process. Most of the impacts of development that occur on our traditional lands that have an impact on our rights and title occur off reserve and through activities primarily by the provincial governments. We believe it is the federal government's fiduciary responsibility to ensure that our rights and title issues are addressed in these developments.

¿ (0925)

Secondly, on the issue of recognition of the value of traditional knowledge, the existing process focuses on the proponent's needs across a very limited timeframe. For instance, in British Columbia, the archaeological past is only identified as pre-1846. Nothing we do on the land today or have continued to do on the land today is taken into consideration. We have an extensive untapped reservoir of traditional knowledge gained through our direct relationship to the land. Currently this is not being addressed. We believe the inclusion of this knowledge will have significant positive impacts on the developmental process.

For instance, we are involved in the Nicola-Similkameen Innovative Forestry Society process that is occurring in the Merritt forest district in British Columbia. It encompasses approximately a million hectares of land. We are working with all major forest industry and the provincial government and all native bands within that area to develop a process to incorporate first nations values into the development and management regimes that are going to be ongoing in this area. We are also working closely with these agencies and governments to incorporate these processes into the land use planning processes. We feel this experience has great applicability to this environmental assessment process because we have developed the capacity and we are able to incorporate our past learnings and traditional knowledge into a system that will be there for all time.

In addition, the Environmental Assessment Act needs to ensure that more comprehensive cultural and heritage studies are undertaken for each project. The incorporation of first nations values into these projects and into a definition of sustainable development is crucial to ensure first nations values are taken into effect on any environmental assessments that are undertaken.

For more meaningful participation of first nations in the process... Currently the environmental assessment process is a bureaucratic paper trail with very limited first nations involvement. The bulk of the assessments or screenings do not take into consideration any of our values. As I stated before, the bulk of the impact of development through the provincial government impact on our rights and title are not taken into consideration.

We believe meaningful participation of first nations in the process can provide better information for making decisions on environmental impacts, which will result in improved environmental management, and also lead to better acceptance of developments that are undertaken. We are not opposed to development. We want development that happens in a way that respects our values, respects the environment, and is going to be sustainable over the long term. That also has to address what equitable economic benefits are available to all, including ourselves.

We recommend revising the act to apply wherever aboriginal rights are likely to be infringed or where there will be negative impacts on our lands and resources in our aboriginal homelands.

Finally, on the issue of funding for first nations participation, currently we have no mechanism to fund our participation in any of this. Our band governments are not funded to provide this kind of expertise. We are barely funded to provide for the social and education needs of our communities.

The act needs to provide two levels of funding for support, the first one being more funding from proponents with regard to direct project- or research-based initiatives, and the second being longer-term capacity building through resource-sharing agreements with the government-to-government agreements.

¿ (0930)

In summary, the membership of the Nicola Tribal Association is progressive and has proven to be very adaptable over the years, but it requires the necessary funding and legislative resources to fully participate in a meaningful way in the development of our homelands.

We believe that by adopting the recommendations put forward here and by the AFN, the Government of Canada would greatly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. They would greatly improve the incorporation of first nations values into the processes and the management of the environment and the economic well-being of all inhabitants of our homelands.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present here this morning.

¿ (0935)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Walkem.

Now we'd like to hear from Jose Kusugak, who's the president of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. Welcome.

Mr. Jose Kusugak (President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to note that the Inuit started this organization 30 years ago to advocate for them on language, culture, environment, and so on. The Inuit of the Mackenzie area finished their negotiations on land claims with the federal government many years ago, followed by Nunavut and northern Quebec, and Labrador just signed its agreement in principle last year. With that, we've started a whole new era for our organization. The acronym is now ITK, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. In English Inuit Tapirisat means they will unite in the future, because Labrador at that time wasn't involved. Thirty years later, now that we're one organization, it's called the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, which means the organization of Inuit in Canada.

We've been working on the environment, it seems like, since 1972, when I was a kid, and it's nice for me to be able to introduce Natan Obed from Labrador, who probably wasn't even born when we started the organization. He will be doing the bulk of our presentation this morning, and he will show that our young people have to carry on the work of their fathers, so to speak.

Jamie Kneen has been our technical adviser on this area for a number of years. As a matter of fact, I first met him when I was wearing another hat, working for Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. some years ago.

When we were negotiating the land claims with the federal government, articles regarding the environment were put in place. That says to me, and I think to you, that the federal government and the Inuit agreed we should take the best and the strengths of the Inuit, the rest of Canada, and the federal government and come up with good policies and ways of working together on the environment. I hope it is with that spirit that Natan will be able to present that.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for continuing to persevere in the development of Bill C-5 in spite of potential adverse political consequences. Your continued diligence has paved the way for further understanding and collaboration between the crown and the Inuit people. I want to assure you that Canadian Inuit are willing and anxious to help out in the overall process of environmental assessment, as it says in our land claims agreements, to ensure a sustainable future for all Canadians.

I'd like to pass it to Natan for the main presentation.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Before Natan speaks, I would like to formally welcome you to our committee. It's wonderful to see a young person speaking on behalf of his people. Welcome.

Mr. Natan Obed (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami): Thank you very much, and good morning.

I hope you have reviewed the March 2000 submissions by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Labrador Inuit Association that we resubmitted in February. Since none of the suggestions within these documents were formally discussed or incorporated into the amendment process, we feel the contents still accurately convey the many issues Canadian Inuit have with respect to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Today we also submit a companion document entitled Inuit Rights, Land Claim Agreements and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which further details the positions of Inuit regions in regard to CEAA. I hope this document can help in answering any technical questions you may have. Unfortunately, our organization could not have this document prepared in time for translation and I apologize that it is not available in French. Despite this, we do appreciate and understand the importance of being able to work in your language and apologize for the inconvenience.

I'd like to start by briefly explaining our organization and the Canadian Inuit political regions. The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, also known as ITK, is the national voice of Canadian Inuit. ITK represents Inuit regions on socio-economic, law and justice, health, and environmental matters. Approximately 30% of this country, or about three million square kilometres, is under Inuit stewardship in four separate political regions.

Our four regions are the Inuvialuit region of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, the Nunavik region in northern Quebec, and the Nunatsiavut region in northern Labrador. All, with the exception of Labrador, have settled comprehensive land claims agreements. More than 43% of Canada's ocean coastline is found within these regions. In addition, a significant part of the country's overall territorial sea and internal waters falls within Inuit land claim areas. This is quite a bit of land to be responsible for, and it is a responsibility we as Inuit take very seriously.

Our organization, formerly known as the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, was founded in 1971 with the explicit mandate to help each Inuit region settle its outstanding land claims with the Government of Canada.

One of the driving forces behind our desire to settle comprehensive land claims agreements was to ensure the fragile Arctic environment we live in be protected and developed with full Inuit agreement, participation, and compensation. We depend on the land, water, and ice for our livelihood and well-being. Inuit have been stewards of the Arctic for hundreds of generations and plan to continue this important role in the future.

Ultimately, the Inuit want what is best for the land. Thus, legislation pertaining to the environment is of paramount importance. A profound connection with the land and the wildlife has been reinforced by the special emphasis our regions placed on developing specific mechanisms for environmental assessment, environmental protection, and wildlife protection within each land claim agreement.

The Inuit feel that the negotiated mechanisms for environmental assessment under each land claim take precedence over CEAA, because these mechanisms are better suited for the Arctic, as they were developed by Inuit for the lands in which Inuit live.

Along with the government, we have worked long and hard to develop environmental assessment that is meaningful, comprehensive, and includes Inuit in all decision-making processes. We do not want to lose these established systems. We also do not want to dilute our agreements by agreeing to comply with CEAA provisions when we have perfectly good mechanisms in place.

Largely through co-management bodies, our regions--minus Nunatsiavut--have successfully carried out environmental assessment under the provisions of the land claims agreements well before CEAA came into being. CEAA came into effect in 1995, and has muddled our established environmental assessment process. In many cases, we've been asked to duplicate environmental assessment steps or adhere specifically to the provisions under CEAA. This work has been done in addition to fulfilling the requirements of our own agreements.

Our regional administrators and specialists were already overloaded, and the added responsibility to fulfill CEAA has not been been prudent, effective, or efficient. Instead of additional work, we had hoped the government would have provided resources and training to help Inuit regions do the best possible job under their established land claim mechanisms. Thus, in the five-year review we had hoped to formalize the relationship between our processes and those of CEAA, so that there would be no duplication or wasted resources.

¿ (0940)

We need explicit recognition of the land claims agreements and their respective environmental assessment regimes within CEAA. This view was put forward by our regions in their five-year reviews and has been supported by the regulatory advisory committee on which ITK has a seat. The RAC agreed that the act should specifically recognize environmental assessment processes and powers established in law, for example through comprehensive land claims agreements. The RAC also felt that doing so would clarify the relationship between the processes outlined in the act and those created under other agreements and their implementing legislation. This recommendation has not been implemented in Bill C-19.

There must be ways of dealing with our outstanding issues. Maybe it's not too late to insert a section that explicitly recognizes the land claims agreements in their respective environmental assessment regimes within CEAA.

We understand you are concerned with limiting the scope of today's discussion to the four corners of the bill, and although the needed amendment may be straightforward, it may be complicated to formally introduce. We realize there are policy implications for the federal government to formally recognize agreements that it has entered into and that are protected by section 35 of the Constitution.

If our concerns cannot be included in Bill C-19, maybe we can explore other avenues to reach the same end. Perhaps your committee, possibly in conjunction with the aboriginal affairs committee, can form a group whose intent is to determine exactly where aboriginal groups with settled land claims agreements stand in regard to the application or non-application of CEAA within their claims areas. This group could also explore and propose further or amending protection for specific types of aboriginal groups inadequately covered under the current CEAA wording.

Nunatsiavut, for example, is a federally recognized, non-treaty aboriginal group without a settled land claim. Such groups have limited protection in CEAA. In many regards they are treated essentially like the general public and have had significant problems gaining access to meaningful consultation within environmental assessment projects. This problem should be addressed, especially since there are many aboriginal groups in Canada in similar situations.

There are other areas that we feel are very important and that had broad support, including from the regulatory advisory committee, that did not emerge in Bill C-19. The assessment of policies and programs is the most significant to Inuit, since federal policies and programs affect us all. For example, even if we were very careful about assessing the impact of Inuit fisheries, the federal government could implement programs that allowed the resource to be fished out, and then we'd lose along with everyone else. Species such as fish don't respect jurisdictional boundaries and should be assessed accordingly.

Within the five-year review we have been happy with some progress within specific amendments. We would like to highlight the work that the agency and the regulatory advisory committee did in making the transboundary provisions of the act workable and improving the public participation opportunities within the bill.

We do not want to hold up this process. We want what is best for our lands. Canadian Inuit are willing and anxious to help out in the overall process of environmental assessment to ensure a sustainable future for all Canadians. If we are not successful today, we will patiently wait for our next opportunity.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. We look forward to working with you further.

¿ (0945)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Obed and Mr. Kusugak.

I have on my list, as usual, Mr. Lunn. You have five minutes.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich--Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I would like to thank the presenters for all of their presentations. I thought they were very informative and very well thought out.

I suppose there is a common theme, to summarize what I heard from virtually all the groups. One is that there's--and again, I'm trying to get it to the macro level--an issue of funding. There is a serious concern that there are no provisions right now or even in the current legislation for funding to allow first nations people to participate. There is no mechanism for that or to provide the training and the expertise to do that environmental assessment work.

Those are some of the main messages that I seem to be getting--the resources and the ongoing training to participate. I think everybody is clear that they want to participate in the process fully to help enhance the assessment process, not to do the opposite.

I just want to make sure I'm reading that right. So let me start, Madam Chair, with Mr. Coon Come, and I'll also get Mr. Obed to comment with respect to resources, though I appreciate they're maybe in a slightly different situation. Is that a fair assessment?

Just before I close, are you asking for those changes to be brought into Bill C-19 because they're not there at this time?

¿ (0950)

Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much.

There's one of the principles we mentioned in our submission, the need for funding, but as you have well stated, there is no provision for adequate funding and resourcing. The act itself would imply that there would be first nations participation, but then it's restricted to within the reserve.

I think all of us are saying that we need to broaden the environmental assessment regime, broaden it and expand what environmental impact means, to include the social and economic impacts on way of life.

One of the reasons I stress that personally is that for all of us as first nations I don't believe that we are anti-development, but I believe that we need to get involved. Certainly, 80% of the 633 first nations are sitting on lands that are going to be expropriated through development because we want to create jobs and stimulate the economy of this country. That means that 80% of those communities, of the 633 first nations, are going to be impacted on by forestry, by mining, by hydro-electric development, and by pipelines.

There is a need to involve the first nations right from day one in terms of carrying out real impact assessments. In the north you're affecting a way of life, including in B.C. and including the Mi'kmaqs.

There's a need to allow first nations to have those resources to do, let's say, a major land use plan of how we use the land to exercise our rights, whether they are gathering rights or whether it's an aboriginal right to hunt and fish. You need a plan because you have been impacting on a certain animal habitat area you need to protect and take cognizance of.

I may add, Madam Chair, that one of the things I feel that's so imperative when you deal with development happening on lands and first nation lands across this country is the need to be flexible in terms of independent public inquiries. Yes, we have Bill C-19 for impact assessments, but there are major developments that will happen. The legislation itself will not be able to carry most of the work that is initiated.

I was involved, as you know, in calling for a public independent inquiry in Quebec for Great Whale, and go beyond just where proponents... It is assumed that they know what's best because they've been there for 50 years, but they don't allow for real public debate on it or provide for the financial and human resources to carry it out.

Look at a no-bill option. Look at alternatives to projects that are being initiated, being creative and being innovative. Certainly that cannot be done without adequate financial and human resources.

Mr. Natan Obed: Madam Chair, we do have existing funding agreements for things such as environmental assessment, but the claims would allow for a more constructive relationship with the Canadian government within this area to build capacity and for training and expertise. There is room for improvement upon our systems, but we do have existing funding for those.

Mr. Gary Lunn: That's what I thought.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Bigras, please.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to broach the same topic as Mr. Lunn. What I gathered from your presentation this morning, which has the same slant, is that you want a nation-to-nation relationship, a government-to-government relationship for the environment, and, of course, for economic and community development. I must say that I fully support that view, which I think is fundamental here in Canada.

Last week, Mr. Saganash made a presentation and he said he was very happy that Quebec and the Crees had struck an agreement on development and that the Crees were willing to strike the same type of agreement with the federal government. The notion of nation-to-nation relationship must be included in such an agreement.

That said, I understand you also want territorial agreements and legislation to implement those accords, and you also want your know-how to be recognized in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Here is my question. You probably know that in Quebec, we have the Environment Quality Act. Last week, Ms. Paule Halley, from the Kativik Advisory Committee on the Environment, told us, when talking about the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and I quote:

...since the end of the 70s, Quebec has officially recognized the Agreement's regime under chapter 2 of Quebec's Environment Quality Act, which completely implements the terms of the Agreement. Those regimes are separate from those in the south. They are fully recognized and it works very well.

Don't you think that this is the type of amendment that should be made to Bill C-19 to ensure the two nations are on an equal footing?

¿ (0955)

[English]

Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much. Meegwetch. I am from Quebec, northern Quebec. I probably negotiated 8% of that agreement before I left Quebec to be the national chief, so I'm well familiar with the agreement signed between the Crees and the Government of Quebec.

Certainly the intent was to assume some of the responsibilities of the Government of Quebec, which they did not fulfill, and then we would be responsible in managing those funds and carrying the obligations of Quebec. Certainly the environmental regime and the land regimes were very important to us, as we felt that those were related and cannot be separated--land and environment. They're both connected.

I do agree, and in this country there are many special land claims negotiations. There will be adhesions to lands. There's an independent claims body, the Indian Claims Commission that's out there, and all deal with expanding the existing reserve lands, in which the majority of first nations are in courts because of an aboriginal title and because of development on land. Consequently, there will be expansion on those existing reserves, whether it be six square kilometres of land.... That's why we are suggesting there be an expansion of authority and responsibility when you initiate environmental impacts, not just on reserve lands, because you will have land claims agreements that will be signed in the near future.

Look at B.C., for example. Once those treaties are signed, there will be land provisions on them; there will be environmental provisions there. Consequently, you'll have to reflect that in this legislation, where authority has been given, where land regimes have been established, where environmental components are part of the land regimes, and therefore you have to expand this. So how do you integrate that? I certainly recognize that in Canada and across this country, knowing all the number of tables that are out there, you'd have to amend this Indian Act to reflect the reality that is happening out there, because the reserves will be extended. There are adhesion agreements.

There are presently about 50 agreements between first nations that have been agreed to, that were negotiated, lands that are that are not necessarily adjacent to the reserves, but even within the outskirts of Calgary, within the outskirts of certain towns, right across the country. Those lands are now not necessarily within the reserves. Therefore you need to extend that jurisdiction.

So I totally agree that you'd have to amend it. That's why we are saying you have to recognize the territory rather than just the reserves, and be able to expand that to provide for the first nations to participate in the assessments.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Another witness wanted to make a comment. Mr. Walkem.

Mr. David Walkem: Yes, thank you. I apologize, I don't speak French. Bear with me.

It is important for us in particular, in that we are not... Our nation is comprised of 15 Indian bands, of which I'm representing six of the Nlaka'pamux Nation. That's only one of two in all of British Columbia that have no communities in the treaty process.

We are not looking to become part of the existing treaty process as it's structured now, so our issues are not being dealt with on this basis. What we have attempted to do and are working diligently on is to develop more of a co-stewardship, co-management understanding with the different levels of government. One of the big issues we've dealt with over the last five years is this co-management within the Merritt forest district I was talking about.

It is really important to understand that this act doesn't take into consideration my aboriginal rights as they are affected on about 99.9% of my traditional homeland, because most of the impacts are dealt with through other developments that are not funded by the federal government. Most of the impacts that are dealt with by the federal government are small, the screening aspect of it, and we never get any input into that.

What is really important goes back to the first gentleman's question about one of the important issues here. Funding is one issue, but to me the most important issue is the issue of recognition of our rights and title and jurisdiction and therefore our values. What is missing here is our values do not have a mechanism to be put into decisions that are affecting the environment and the land base.

We are working outside of the treaty processes to try to show people a mechanism that can work where our values are incorporated so that we have input into what happens on the land base and how it affects us. If we are involved in the decisions that are ongoing and the development that is ongoing in our homelands, and approve of them, then to me the issue of consultation falls off the table. Then you start talking about the issues of economic benefits, resource sharing, that sort of thing.

One of the reasons we're not in the treaty process is that we are being asked to extinguish our rights over our homelands. To me, that would be the same as asking somebody in Germany or France or England to extinguish their rights to their homelands.

We want to be able to work with the people who have come here. From the very beginning, our people lived on... The gold rush came through British Columbia. The Trans-Canada Highway and both national railways go through our land. We have been impacted by contact tremendously over the years. Our people have said from the beginning, “There's lots of land and lots of resources here. We need to share it with these people.” That's been reversed now that we're almost beggars in our own homelands.

We believe that by dealing with the act here and starting the process of recognizing that we have something valuable to contribute... The most important thing here is that we do have something valuable to contribute to the environment and the well-being of this land and the development of it.

I believe that, yes, funding is one thing, but it's the incorporation of values and the recognition of our rights off these little patches of land they slapped us on...

My band is roughly 300 people, and we have 24 pieces of reserve lands scattered throughout the sagebrush and rattlesnakes of southern interior B.C. But we're not interested in focusing our attention on that. We're interested in where we have always gained our livelihood, out of our land base, our homeland around us.

À (1000)

I'm not familiar with the particulars of the James Bay stuff. I'm very encouraged by some of the ideas that have come forward there. I think there is some relationship that is almost similar with the Crees in Quebec and with the B.C. first nations. There's polarization there, yet out of polarization, two peoples who want to find out a way to move forward were able to come up with something. I'm hoping we'll be able to do that in British Columbia.

À (1005)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Walkem.

Mr. Kneen.

Mr. Jamie Kneen (Technical Adviser, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami): It's probably better for all of us if I speak in English.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I know my French is currently in that state. Please tell us who you are and who you represent.

Mr. Jamie Kneen: My name is Jamie Kneen, and I'm a technical adviser for Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

As Monsieur Bigras pointed out, the two questions are related. Certainly the Inuit approach has been to try to best protect the Arctic environment by way of land claims agreements and mechanisms provided in those agreements. The approach has been to seek a constructive relationship with Canada, with the federal government. That comes into play when we talk about capacity building and trying to implement good and effective environmental assessment.

In essence, those provisions are in place. I would refer you back to the regulatory advisory committee recommendation, 37.4, which says fairly simply:

“A new section of the Act should be created (or amendments), which would allow, where aboriginal peoples have an environmental assessment process established in law (e.g. under a Land Claim Agreement and related implementation legislation), to recognize those powers.”

That's the gist of everything we've put forward today, I think. All this work has gone into that mechanism, negotiating and implementing. It really seems that it would be fairly simple to just recognize that.

Thanks.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Kneen.

I would like to remind committee members that we do have a five-minute limit, although the chair is feeling incredibly generous, given that it's Thursday, near the end of the week.

The issue before us is certainly a truly important issue, a complex and long-standing one. I'm certainly willing to entertain long responses from witnesses, but if you could try to be a little more succinct, that would be very helpful to the process, so we can get many more different questions. I think we need to have a very good and clear debate on this, and I do appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor--St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chief Coon Come, this is just a quick one. I passed this note to your assistant. Is the annex that's in schedule C of your original presentation now up to date? Were there any additional amendments made in The Hague leading up to the end of last week, when they adjourned?

Chief Matthew Coon Come: Yes, that's the latest one.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you.

With regard to the amendment you have suggested on proposed section 16.1, I don't necessarily want to put words in your mouth, but I had expected that we would see you propose making mandatory the existing proposed section 16.1. That one reads “Community knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge may be considered”. Was any consideration given to proposing that this be mandatory, that it be “shall” rather than “may”?

Chief Matthew Coon Come: Just to clarify, I think we have to recognize the diversity of the first nations I represent across the country. There are 80 first nations with different cultures, languages, beliefs, and traditions. I think we have to respect that some of their elders have told us they wouldn't want to participate because of spiritual beliefs and certain knowledge they probably wouldn't want to share. So we were mindful of that.

As events unfold, if there is a development or activity within a given area, you approach that particular first nation that's affected, and then work from there. If they wish to have their elders and this knowledge incorporated, fine. I believe the majority of them would.

À (1010)

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think that Mr. Walkem, perhaps Chief Coon Come, and maybe Mr. Obed as well might want to comment on this.

Mr. Walkem, you've made a strong point today about the need for the assessments to take into account culture and heritage, which is not reflected as I read the existing bill or any of the proposed amendments. I was going to ask where you would suggest we put that in. But then--perhaps it was Mr. Kneen, but it could also have been in some comments from Mr. Obed--if we simply reserve assessments to be within the existing agreements between the federal government and the first nations where those agreements exist, I want to suggest it wouldn't be necessary in those circumstances because the first nation, whatever aboriginal group is dealing with the assessment themselves...it wouldn't be necessary. Am I right on that first, that in fact that would be taken into account if you were doing the assessment yourselves? That's my first question.

And then for the situations where the act will apply, where would you propose that we amend it so culture and heritage are taken into account?

Mr. David Walkem: Thank you.

As we're not involved in any of those types of land claim agreements or anything else, I'm not that familiar with them, but I'm assuming that they would be taken care of under that.

In terms of where to include the cultural and heritage studies, in other words, the incorporation of the traditional knowledge and values, a lot of it has to do with the definitions around—I can't remember the term—what is sustainable development and what is reasonable information. If our values are not incorporated into those definitions and if the people who are undertaking the decisions don't have that ability to go and consider that, then they won't.

I'm not a legal expert in terms of this, and I haven't undertaken a legal review of the bill itself, but I would suggest something there somewhere.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Can I just interrupt? I don't want to put you on the spot. Certainly if you could analyse that--and I'm saying this to all of you--and come back to the committee... you could certainly send this back to us at some point in the not too distant future, because we're trying to get through the bill. If we could, we'd like to hear that from you. I didn't want to put you on the spot, but that would be helpful to us, because I had not caught this point before.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Kneen.

Mr. Jamie Kneen: With respect to that, you're quite right on your first point. The existing land claims agreements within their structures allow for participation, mostly through co-management structures, of Inuit on their own terms and in their own processes. Again, simply recognizing that would provide that assurance.

The same applies to not just the cultural appropriateness of the process itself but also to the role of traditional knowledge. The Inuit approach is to have traditional knowledge holders be part of the assessment process and be part of the co-management process on any resource decision, so they're directly involved, again, on their own terms. By using their traditional knowledge they apply it, so more complex formulations are not really necessary.

By the same token, we were actually fairly content with what's there within the proposed amendments. It's not restrictive, it's enabling, and it allows traditional knowledge to be brought in under the appropriate terms. If there are questions of intellectual property rights or if there are questions of cultural appropriation or the publication of sensitive information, that kind of thing, they can be treated appropriately.

I know that there is an initiative to establish an aboriginal working group or an advisory group that, I understand, is meant to provide more details on that and more of a practical application without trying to codify it into legislation.

Thanks.

À (1015)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Kneen.

Chief Coon Come.

Chief Matthew Coon Come: When you look at the question that was raised in our submission, when we talk about the amendment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we make reference to it in the preamble on the definitions when we talk about what do we mean by aboriginal governments or we talk about the principles of environmental stewardship or environmental protection.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Chief Coon Come, could you tell us what page that is in your brief?

Chief Matthew Coon Come: That's on page 15.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): And this is your big brief, the full brief.

Chief Matthew Coon Come: On the amendments.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Chief Matthew Coon Come: I'm not reading the page, I'm just making reference to it. We mentioned this in the preamble, when we used words like “principles of environmental stewardship”, “environmental protection”, when we define what we mean by aboriginal government or the definitions of environmental effect. That's where we mention cultural heritage.

That's always been the problem--that when we use words like “sustainable development” or “environmental impact”, they mean nothing. It means something different to a developer. It means something different to first nations whose way of life would be affected.

I think it's important to realize that when we talk about culture, we're talking about sacred sites. They may be grave sites. They may be specific mountains. When we talk about heritage, it could be certain rivers that are sacred to us and need to be protected.

So those are just words, but when we come to actually defining them, I think that's where it will be a little clearer. But certainly we'd advocate and support the need to clarify some of the definitions as to where the act would apply, which part of the legislation, so that there is cultural heritage protection.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much. I think what you have told us is very important, simply because people hold different understandings of what sustainable development means, and it's how you actually define those words and how you operationalize those definitions and words at the beginning of the preamble to the legislation where it really counts.

I'm just wondering if there are... Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): Yes, there are.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): There are? There are Mr. Tonks out there?

Mr. Alan Tonks: There's only one, but...

Thank you very much for you deputations this morning. I'm new in this particular federal area, and coming from a municipal background I am certainly being educated from the perspective of first nations people. So my questions are exploratory; please allow some tolerance for my lack of knowledge.

To me, the term “sustainable development” is the legacy that we pass on to future generations. I appreciate that every deputant has used that concept. In my own background, it's been difficult to find a consistency from a municipal perspective of what that definition is, but to me it's that legacy. And we're all trying to create a better legacy, in fact, for future generations.

I want to understand this issue of treaty responsibilities and processes and the Environmental Assessment Act. I want to understand more how there's a conflcit between the processes in the treaty that conflict with the Environmental Assessment Act.

I think, Mr. Obed, you addressed that. You said that the RAC in fact had said that there should be an accommodating of those processes. I think your major point is that where there is consistency and when there's similarity, then surely there's no difference, and we should use those as our major principles. And you suggest a process to do that.

I'd like to understand better how there's a conflict between processes under the treaty and the Environmental Assessment Act.

À (1020)

Mr. Natan Obed: Well, the main point I guess I could make is that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was 1975, the western Arctic agreement was 1984, and Nunavut was 1993, so we're looking at a period of twenty years and different governments, different ways of approaching environmental assessment. So within each one of our agreements is a significantly different way of approaching environmental assessment. The newer versions are much more compatible with CEAA than the older ones. So in certain cases we have to do twice the amount of work. We have to do our own processes and then CEAA's as well.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Duplication.

Mr. Natan Obed: Yes.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Okay.

Is there anybody else who would like to answer? And I have a follow-up to that.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Would anyone else like to respond?

Chief Coon Come.

Chief Matthew Coon Come: Those are pretty good comments from a young man. I appreciate it. He has read the agreement, actually. I'm surprised. We can learn from the young ones too, can't we?

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of course provided certain provisions on the land regime and set up advisory boards that involved first nations and outlined the areas of responsibility and the areas in which they can conduct research. Some of it was restrictive, so we had to push for an expansion. I'm not just talking about environmental impacts, whatever that may mean to different people, but expanding it to include culture, heritage and economic impacts, because for us in northern Quebec, the land is still the largest employer. So for us in the north, you impact an economic activity, a way of life, the way people support themselves.

But I would like to reiterate that in the act itself you are restricting it just to reserves. I have to emphasize that when agreements are signed—and there will be agreements signed, additional lands will be allocated—you have to make sure that's in conformity, that first nations have the same authority and jurisdiction over those lands that they have agreed to under the new treaties, so that there will be no conflict. On reserve, that is one impact that does not apply, because they have adjacent additional lands, expansion of their recognized territory, and a federal regime applies. So you have to coordinate that.

Because you're a municipal guy, I have a question also, because I have concerns.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Oh, oh. We're supposed to ask the questions.

À (1025)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): All is fair here.

Chief Matthew Coon Come: Assuming that there are finances and resources allocated in the creation of the environmental administration at the local level, we will have to deal with the jurisdiction they have. Do they have the sole jurisdiction as to the final say when they carry the environmental impact assessment, within their communities as opposed to outside of that? There will be conflicting issues. I know that because we have environmental administrators in the nine Cree communities where I was the former chief and the grand chief in northern Quebec. We had local environmental administrators, and then you had the Quebec regime and the federal regime, and so on. We need to coordinate that.

So when I read through these documents, if there is a consensus that there be an environmental administrator at the local level, you have to expand the authority and jurisdiction they have.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Madam Chair, the authorities through a municipal act of course vary right across the country, but in terms of the Ontario tradition, there is always a jurisdictional oversight that's provided by the province, and any disputes have to go through what is called the Ontario Municipal Board.

That leads me into my question, if I may. Maybe I can discuss that with you later; obviously that answer was kind of evasive. But there's this concept of notwithstanding, and I want to bounce this off you: Is it acceptable that where there's a conflict, there will have to be some sort of understanding that we can have processes that are consistent between the federal environmental assessment act and the individual treaty acts, but notwithstanding that, recognizing that there will be treaty lands and in the environment there will be other Canadians, that there is going to be an inherent conflict between that duality, so notwithstanding that we have these treaty obligations and we have non-treaty issues, because of the nature of the environment, which is overlapping and involves many groups of people and overlapping issues of rivers going across boundaries and so on, we are always going to have that requirement to have some sort of mechanism or understanding in principle that some law has to prevail, and for better or worse, that happens to be the law that protects all Canadians, inclusive of first nations people? Do we understand that principle? Have we grappled with that?

Mr. Jose Kusugak: Yes, it does say that. Inuit did not have traditional treaties, so to speak. We do have the modern-day ones with the different land claims groups. Right in the land claims agreement with the federal government it says that when there is that kind of disagreement, the land claims agreement will prevail. In some areas, when we're suggesting it is a workable thing with the CEAA, we also have to be careful we're not diluting the land claims agreement.

On the issue of understanding your own backyard and so on, the mayors of the Nunavut region are coming down here next week to have their meetings here in Ottawa. It will be really interesting to see them get off the plane at this time of year. Many of them were born in igloos, and I'm really hoping the weather will get up to 28 or 29 degrees to shock them, just so they'll be able to see a different kind of environment.

I'm sure they have certain expectations of the environment, and so on. Older people who've come from the Arctic have been shocked. They've said, “I thought there were no animals down here any more. Look at all these birds.” And they've pointed to the pigeons flying all around. So they're really impressed by things we really don't see here, and likewise the other way.

On this whole idea of environmental assessment and traditional knowledge, it was clearly traditional knowledge up to five years ago. Now, because of climate change, global warming and so on, a lot of our people who have traditional knowledge are saying “Holy mackerel, this is a different world now. How are they going to build pipelines here because of this, or with the bears coming on the land?” So there's a real problem of readjustment. But they can still use the traditional knowledge to argue, to a certain point.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Walkem, please.

Mr. David Walkem: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

If I understand your question correctly, you're saying there should be this overall law that has some final authority to guide all of these processes and be the final arbiter. I could agree, on the condition that law reflects our values, but currently it doesn't. There's no mechanism for it to incorporate our values, other than through this parliamentary process, and that doesn't work for us out there. So we believe there are mechanisms within the Constitution to reflect our values in these laws you're undertaking right now.

As we are trying to show through our actions in British Columbia, in our neck of the woods, if we can develop a process to be undertaken that we can all agree on, rather than trying to come up with a definition of sustainable development, which every one of us has a different definition of, can we not call it sustainable development at the end of the thing? I think that's the same reflection here, in terms of the act.

I could agree that some final overall act would take precedence, as long as it reflected my inherent aboriginal rights and values that are protected by the Constitution.

À (1030)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you, Mr. Walkem.

Madam Redman.

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

I apologize for having to step out. There was something in the House I needed to do.

I'd like to direct my first question to Chief Walkem. The Nicola Tribal Council has shown a great deal of leadership in establishing first nations involvement in fishery and timber resource management issues in British Columbia. How has the NTA related to other federal departments, such as fisheries, when they were developing environmental assessments of projects where CEAA applies?

Mr. David Walkem: In terms of our development with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we haven't undertaken any direct projects with this act involved. Our involvement is an ongoing work in progress with DFO. Once again, our values aren't particularly reflected in the agreements they are attempting to enter into with us, and I can't be very clear in terms of how this act in particular would be reflected in our dealings with other agencies. I'm sorry.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Certainly there has been some discussion, and the witnesses have touched on it in their interventions. There are some fairly specific issues Bill C-19 is attempting to address, ones relating specifically to aboriginal issues. We've touched on traditional aboriginal knowledge, the focus of the aboriginal within the purpose of the act, an attempt in proposed section 10 of the act to close the funding gap somewhat, and provision for expanded band council environmental assessment regulations as well as expanding opportunities to ensure aboriginal self-government participation and consultation with federal environmental assessment panels.

I would open it up to everyone, but I would ask Chief Coon Come to start off by responding to the initiatives that are in the bill, specifically the effort to incorporate aboriginal people in this act.

Chief Matthew Coon Come: There's always room for improvement. There are references to aboriginal peoples, but I think we have to go beyond non-derogation clauses and interpretive clauses as if we were a special interest group. We're not a special interest group. The Constitution recognizes that there are three aboriginal groups in this country: the Métis, the Inuit, and us. Certainly we've signed treaties that are based on a nation-to-nation, government-to-government basis. It is those treaties that establish that relationship. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended a partnership that is based on fairness and on equitable, real, meaningful participation, government to government and nation to nation.

This is why in our presentation we remind the government of the need to maintain that responsibility. We're talking about having jurisdiction over certain environmental issues, having a say in the way development takes place, and making sure the environmental impact assessment takes into account cultural, heritage, and economic rights.

At the same time, we're talking about what my friend Dave was talking about, the incorporation of aboriginal law and aboriginal environmental values and principles. These must be integrated into environmental law, because there is an evolution of the recognition of hunting, fishing, and trapping rights, rights that relate to the land, to the environment, and to people exercising that right. Certainly incorporating these would be a step forward.

The only way to do that is to allow for clarification through the amendments we have proposed to recognize that right. We're not just a special interest group. Yes, there's a need to recognize third parties, but those are dealt with in some of the treaties. Third party rights, whether they be for mining concessions or forestry allocations of wood, are recognized within some of the agreements, such as the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Those can be dealt with or have already been dealt with in treaties.

It's just a matter of taking it to the next level of recognition of those values and principles and of recognizing the evolution of law. Then we can have a real say, not just at the local level, but through expanding that to include the territories we have lived on and have an established occupation on. The courts have recognized this, and we need to be able to be involved in this process.

The idea of inclusion is a very good idea. We're making some recommendations on the preamble to try to clarify things as to our involvement. Certainly we would like to go down the path of real cooperation with a real partnership and not be treated as just another interest group out there, which is not the case.

À (1035)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Kneen.

Mr. Jamie Kneen: Yes, if I could add to that, I suppose the Inuit perspective is somewhat different, both historically and legally.

Going back to the bill itself, I think you're referring to proposed paragraph 4(b.3), which says the act is “to promote communication and cooperation between responsible authorities and Aboriginal peoples...”. And that's great, but I think we're hoping for a little bit more than that. There are a number of other specific pieces of Bill C-19 that I think have an impact—again, beyond what we've talked about earlier—in terms of the land claims agreements themselves. Those come into play in two areas. One is in Labrador, where there is an agreement that has not come into effect. There is an agreement in principle, but it's not finalized and implemented, so Labrador Inuit are still struggling with the interim period until their own agreement is workable. The other set of issues is around transboundary and inter-jurisdictional questions, because of things like climate change, long-range transport of airborne pollutants, and migratory species, which are all crucial elements for Inuit, but for which the jurisdiction is obviously more diluted.

Sections like clause 9 of Bill C-19 on regional studies are a good start, but that's why we were looking for more emphasis on strategic environmental assessment policies and programs to allow us to get at those bigger issues.

The transboundary provisions and the follow-up and mitigation provisions are also, from our perspective, useful, but limited, shall I say.

Thank you.

À (1040)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Mr. Reed, do you have a question at this time?

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): No, and I apologize, Madam Chair. I was held in another meeting, so I'm on a learning curve here at the moment. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): We all are. Mr. Reed is a faithful attendee of this committee.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cox. I apologize.

Mr. Michael Cox: That's fine.

I think I'm coming from more of a practitioner's point of view, instead of the point of view of the global application of CEAA. I spend a lot of my time conducting EAs, whether they're provincial, federal, or policy EAs. I think one of the positive things I see in the amendments is the closure of the funding gap. We're going to have better-quality EAs on reserve, and we're going to have better environmental protection on reserve. I think that's a good thing.

That's all I wanted to add.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much, Mr. Cox.

We've just completed the first round and the chair has a couple of questions.

It's always a challenge to find a way to operationalize things like values into pieces of legislation. Quite clearly, what underlies our laws is values. It's always a challenge to do this in an appropriate fashion.

We had a witness who came before the committee a while ago, Dr. Gibson, who suggested that perhaps the definition of “environment” that currently exists in CEAA is far too narrow. I apologize, I don't have his testimony in front of me so I can't quote it directly. But the current definition of “environment” in CEAA is that environment means the components of the earth, which include land, water, air, organic and inorganic matter interaction, natural systems, etc., but it tends to emphasize the physical components of the environment. It's my understanding--and I may be wrong on this--that the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act has a wider definition of “environment” to include things like social, cultural, and that sort of thing.

For those of you who have attended some of our environmental programs in this country, we know that environment is not limited to only physical environments. It encompasses much broader understandings of environment. So I'm just wondering, because we've had such a good discussion on this, if an amendment to expand the definition of “environment” to include social, cultural, heritage, spiritual—I'm certainly open to input on this—would be helpful in trying to address some of the concerns you've brought forward today.

Mr. Walkem.

Mr. David Walkem: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it is important to understand. From our cultural background, it's a definition of who we are.

One of the strangest things that happened, which my father explained to me, was that in about 1970 or 1971 some people came into an area near where we live and they put on a map “environmental protected area” to protect some plants that were unique to the area, and then they went away. A few years later they came back and said “What's going on here? You guys are still raising your cattle here and you're using the land. This is a protected area.” They never once considered the fact that we're part of it.

I don't know why, but we seem to forget the fact that we're part of the environment, the same as a deer or a bear or a bird or anything else. So I would agree that the social and cultural definitions have to be in that definition of what the impacts on the environment are, because we are part of the environment.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Chief Coon Come.

Chief Matthew Coon Come: My grandfather--we just got his birth certificate--is 110 years old. His father was 115 years old, and his grandfather was 135 years old. When I got involved in politics, with all the development that was happening in northern Quebec, words like “sustainable development”, “environment”, etc., meant nothing to us; they were just words. When I asked our people, who are hunters, fishermen, trappers, to explain to me their notions of some of these words we have, I was very touched by what they said.

My grandfather said that he identifies himself in relation to the land that he has as a hunter, fisherman, and trapper. That may not sound like a lot to some people, but to him, he is one with the land. So when we talk about the definitions, when you talk about lands and all the fiscal components that are there, that's what we keep talking about, expanding it. To me, the people are more important than the land. The people are more important than the animals.

For us, who identify ourselves in relation to the land, that's why we are stressing that you expand the definition to include the social and the cultural and be mindful of the special component of it, because that's more a people relationship. If we succeed in doing that... I certainly would support going beyond the definition of just a physical component, when actually we are part of it--the land and I are one. And certainly our relationship with the animals—we depend on them—makes us one. So I certainly would support going beyond the present definition.

When you talk about the relationship with people, that's why we keep enforcing and reminding the governments of our aboriginal rights of fishing, hunting, and trapping. That's why we keep emphasizing our relationship to the land. So I definitely support going beyond the present, because at the end of the day we are affecting and we will affect. You've developed in the south the major corporations that stimulate the economy in this country. We will go up north and we will affect people where land is still the largest employer, and we will have to clarify the definitions of these, because they will be affected. I think that has to be taken into consideration.

When you talk about trying to ensure that there are aboriginal values that are incorporated into recognition of aboriginal laws, yes, we also have to define those. I think we are making suggestions as to what those definitions would be in our presentation and in our submission.

À (1045)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Mr. Obed, please.

Mr. Natan Obed: Madam Chair, in regard to your question, I'd like to return once again to our land claims provisions, where we do have expanded, more holistic definitions of the environment already in place.

To us, while we would wholeheartedly support an amendment to expand the definition within CEAA, we'd just like to remind the group that we do have a definition of the environment already in place.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Mr. Kusugak.

Mr. Jose Kusugak: I want to talk about that definition a little bit.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Sure.

Mr. Jose Kusugak: Traditionally, there was no definition of avitiliriniq in Inuktitut. It was all one, the Inuit being part of the ecosystem. So there was no Inuit and then the environment. When it came to negotiations, we had to bow to the western world trying to define what “environment” is, outside of the human, the oneself. So we struggled through all that, and we came up with a word, avitiliriniq, which means anything outside of the human form. But at the same time, when we're talking about the environment in Inuktitut, we always include ourselves as part of the environment. Thus, the Inuit are part of the ecosystem, and it has been proven a number of times.

When they stopped sealing, for example, and we really could not go sealing any more, it disturbed the whole environment. It created a real imbalance. It was the same thing with wolf hunting. The environmentalists and the Department of the Environment and so on seem to try to control the environment by stopping hunting in one area, and they create real imbalance.

So it's a definition we had to struggle with, because we didn't have one to begin with. The definition he's talking about is something that was actually defined and put in part of the agreement. So I think he answered it well by saying we'd have to do it all over again with our linguistic groups.

À (1050)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): I thank you for your comments. I believe one of the great failings of western science has been reductionism and the separation of human and non-human nature.

Mr. Bigras is next, on a second round, and we're going to try to keep our questions and responses tighter on this round. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I will stick to the treaties. I do have questions on Canada's international obligations that you want us to meet, such as those under chapter 26 of Agenda 21, but my question is more on treaties.

Mr. Michael Barrett, from the Kativik Advisory Committee on the Environment, whom you probably know, told us last week that an agreement had recently been signed between the Quebec government and the Inuits that should be ratified in the coming weeks.

There is talk about three weeks. In the past two months, the Quebec government has noted two or three places where the environmental assessment process found in chapter 23 of the James Bay Agreement applies.

Here is my question. Do you think it is a good model, one that the federal government should emulate?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Chief Coon Come, please.

Chief Matthew Coon Come: Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the model that was adopted is one where, as you know, under the Constitution, the provincial governments have jurisdiction over natural resources. Certainly we have a model just for Quebec. At the same time, we also have an environmental regime for the federal government, where the people are directly affected. The Inuit, who are adjacent to us in northern Quebec, the Naskapis and the Crees, with the federal government, have the same arrangement with Quebec as it relates to the Quebec environmental regime.

So I would say it is a model, but of course you have to recognize the diversity again of our first nations across the country, to be able to adapt in the way that they see best and what should be included and what the guidelines would be and what kind of jurisdictional authority they would like to assume over their lands and territories, and identify areas where there could be joint assessments because of overriding of third parties or conflicts with the province or the territories. I think the real issue is to be able to identify where the first nations have exclusive jurisdiction and where there are conflicts between third parties, the provinces, or the federal government.

Certainly I would agree that there has to be some kind of national governing policy, because at times we as first nations may want to do certain things that may contravene certain legislation. The province also does the same thing. So you have to have some national standards.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Would anyone else like to comment on that?

Mr. Comartin has another question, but I think he's stepped out for a second.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: May I ask another question while we are waiting for him?

À (1055)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My question is now on the federal government's international obligations. You say:

The federal act must reflect the viewpoints of First Nations on basic concepts such as sustainable development and environmental effects.

We are just pressing the government to follow through on its commitment and to meet its international obligations.

I was struck by the terms you used in your brief, Chief Coon Come. In your view, which international obligations is Canada not meeting through its federal act?

[English]

Chief Matthew Coon Come: I don't think the members want to hear the speech I gave in Durban with regard to the federal government's lack of respect for international law as it pertains to the indigenous peoples of this country. I'll leave it at that.

However, as it relates to the issue at hand, I am of course always very mindful and I have participated in many international forums where I've assessed what Canada's positions are. Certainly that is why we referred to The Hague meeting, in which Canada has allowed the definitions about territories to include lands, waters, and sacred sites, and recommended that the impact assessments take into account the social and cultural concerns as well as the environmental concerns.

It's one thing to sign an international agreement. That is why we've brought it here right now, to try to bring it home. It's nice to say that in the international community, but now let's bring it home. I am raising this in my presentation because of my observation. I'm saying that's nice and dandy, but now let's include it here in this legislation. Words are cheap; let's have it in writing. Let's expand the present areas we're talking about as they pertain to Indians. We're talking about reserves.

That's why I'm reminding the government that you agreed to expand territories. We have aboriginal territories. You have treaties that define our territories. Let's include those in the legislation. Let's amend the legislation to reflect that. You pass legislation where you talk about impact assessments that would include social and cultural aspects. You adopted that. You passed it and you signed it, so now let's bring it home.

I would hope the government here would show some leadership and be able to say they're going to bring it home. We're just supporting what the government is saying internationally. Maybe if they don't, you and I can go and say they have not fulfilled their obligation to the international community and we'll get ourselves into trouble. But you have an opportunity here.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

The committee is normally scheduled between nine and eleven. It has been scheduled between nine and twelve today. I do have to apologize on behalf of some members who have had other scheduled commitments and other committees they sit on. I apologize to the witnesses that people have had to leave.

Mr. Comartin is next because he has to go to the House.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I would like to carry on some other discussion here, but let me just finish with this one question, because I do have to address the House shortly.

I think you all addressed the whole issue of funding in one fashion or another. Chief Coon Come, I'd like to start with you. Mr. Cox, I may want you to respond as well.

At this point, if I understand, there are no provisions in any of the agreements or in any other funding from the department for people to be hired within your communities to specifically deal with environmental assessments. So addressing that question....

Mr. Walkem, you raised the possibility--Chief Coon Come, you may want to address this if you've seen this happen anywhere--that in the agreements or in some other fashion there be some tie-in between resource development and funding for environmental assessments, either specifically on a project or more in terms of capacity building. Has that ever been tried? Are there any examples or precedents for that?

Mr. Michael Cox: Your question about the funding is correct. Tribal council funding basically consists of five components, and environment is not one of them. For environmental assessments, there is no funding from the Department of Indian Affairs. That's why we think that the amendments proposed in Bill C-19 for regulations under paragraph 59(l) are an opportunity. If we did make regulations under them, then the Department of Indian Affairs would have to recognize that process.

Á (1100)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Any other witnesses? Mr. Walkem please.

Mr. David Walkem: Thank you.

We are attempting resource sharing of projects with provincial governments primarily, but haven't been successful yet. We have been able to start the process by funding development assessment work through some creative thinking in terms of what provincial managers do--but not direct environmental assessment projects.

While I don't have any overall examples, I do agree with Mr. Cox that there seems to be confusion that band or tribal councils are viewed as governments with their own revenue sources. But we don't have these yet. It's as simple as that. We were set up in the 1970s to deal with some social and educational issues. But as a chief, I don't get paid to do anything in my community. Instead, I have to pay money to others to administer things.

I think there's more of a willingness now then ever before to consider environmental assessment projects, but we don't have the mechanism in place to kick-start it. That's why I have found that legislation like this is needed. If one put the requirement in legislation that one actually had to do it, it would be done.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Just before you respond, if there is no funding or any other examples, are there any negotiations ongoing between the AFN and the federal government around funding for environmental assessment?

Chief Matthew Coon Come: You asked first if there's any first nation in this country where there's a provision for doing an environmental impact assessment. I of course was involved with the Cree under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The environmental provisions of that agreement called for the creation at the local level of environmental administrators. So environmental impact assessments were provided for, with funding through a ten-year agreement, which I negotiated with the Department of Indian Affairs. With the James Bay and Northern Quebec there are local environmental officers in the communities, and because of the agreement the funding comes from the Department of Indian Affairs in a ten-year agreement. But that's only one component in providing services as a local government to the nine communities. So there is a precedent there.

As for the overall funding, we are very concerned, because if the bill is passed as currently proposed, DIAND will be required to carry out the environmental impact assessments. So we don't get excited that we are going to have 633 environmental administrators. I think it's clear that would only be triggered if there is a development happening in that area. So it is difficult to determine what the funding will be.

But if you want to do a full-scale environmental impact assessment with adequate resources, I can tell you, when we did an impact assessment for the Great Whale River project, just setting up a support network to an office to consider social, cultural, and economic aspects cost about $2 million from the federal government. The overall cost was about $4 million.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Chief Walkem, in your presentation you had talked about screenings. I think other people have alluded to them but haven't mentioned them directly. But the vast majority of environmental assessments done in this country--22,000, a huge number--are screenings.

You had expressed particular concern about problems with these screenings and the ability to provide information. We have consistently heard from witnesses the importance of having as much appropriate information as possible to make good decisions. So I'm wondering if you could just give us a brief description of what happens when a screening occurs in or near your community, or any experience that you've had with screenings.

Á (1105)

Mr. David Walkem: Unfortunately, I haven't had any direct experience with the screenings. I agree with what you're saying, in that our goal is to give decision-makers better information. At the beginning of my presentation I outlined the fact that we created Tmixw Research. Tmixw in our language means “land”. We are setting ourselves up to be co-managers. We are a resource a decision-maker would use when trying to make a decision. They would fund it, as they would any other consultant group, I assume. Right now there's no obligation for them to do it. I think the legislation should reflect that.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

Mr. Cox.

Mr. Michael Cox: Maybe I could add something to your question.

I deal with screenings on a regular basis. They're policy screenings. They say “CEAA” on top, but there's no legal requirement to have them done. It's a policy thing Indian Affairs puts into the conditions of funding. Basically the forms are filled out at the eleventh hour. It's a nuisance. Largely, the projects are already completed. They go to Indian Affairs, they're redone, and then signed off; that's how the system works, if you call it a system. That's how screenings are dealt with, anyway.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you.

I wonder if anyone else wants to make a comment.

Mr. Kneen.

Mr. Jamie Kneen: It would apply mostly in Labrador. In this instance, Labrador Inuit are essentially treated as part of the public. Whatever public information is there is what they have to work on. In that respect, some of the earlier discussion has focused on public access to information at the earliest stages of screening review, and if it's deemed inappropriate, at least having some justification when there's a record of a decision--“We decided it wasn't worth it”, or there was some specific reason for not releasing that information. From the perspective of an involved public--from the Labrador perspective--that's obviously a useful tool, because otherwise there's not much to go on.

To go back to the question of funding, we appreciate that funding has been added to the participant program in the new bill, not so much in the screening stage but for comprehensive studies. Again, it's a bit strange to be a recognized claimant aboriginal group and still be going through the regular public channels and not be treated as the responsible authority in that territory.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Yes?

A voice: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Would you state your name and affiliation for the record, please.

Mr. Lawrence Ignace (Advisor, Assembly of First Nations): My name is Lawrence Ignace. I'm with the Assembly of First Nations.

I recently finished about a one-year determinate position with Environment Canada conducting environmental screenings under CEAA. My responsibility was primarily for Nunavut. It really comes back to the issue of capacity. A lot of times these communities don't have the capacity to even meet what is being asked of them. The department as well doesn't have the capacity to assist these people. There's a real bottleneck being built here that probably could be addressed as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much for those comments. I have one other quick question.

Mr. Walkem, you mentioned in your presentation the issue of equitable economic benefits. I'm wondering if you could just expand on that a little.

If anyone else wants to comment, I'd be happy to hear your comments.

I don't know if it's something we can look at for Bill C-19 or whether it's part of a wider discussion about the context in which environmental assessment operates, but I think it's important to understand that often people who benefit from these developments are not the people who share the costs, and when the development is finished, the money and wealth leave the community. I think this is a tragedy we've heard over and over again in this country. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit on these equitable economic benefits you mentioned in your presentation.

Á (1110)

Mr. David Walkem: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think a lot of good examples of that.... As I said, we're on a main transportation corridor for Canada. We have railroads, pipelines, whatever, going through. When a significant development happens, such as an interprovincial pipeline going through our area, we're offered a couple of jobs to do some assessments of archeological information, maybe a little bit of what's the social impact here, and some construction jobs. That's it.

We have hydro, gas, railroads, highways going through our territory, and we're still as poor as the day they went in. So in terms of equitable resource sharing, we pay the cost of having those things disrupting our lives, yet we get no economic benefit from it. In a lot of cases these things go right smack through the middle of our communities. Over the last 150 years, that's exactly what they've done. They've managed to go through the most accessible areas, which is where we live, and divided our communities up.

I believe that this legislation should put some onus on developers--I'm talking about the bigger project issues--where equitable resource sharing has to occur.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

I'm wondering if any of the other witnesses would like to comment on that.

Mr. Cox, please.

Mr. Michael Cox: Along those same lines, in Nova Scotia a lot of the industry is forestry. The main management tool the foresters use in Nova Scotia is clear-cutting, and a lot of this happens in traditional lands. All of Nova Scotia is considered traditional territory.

There is no requirement, provincially or federally, to have any kind of value screen during those things. As a matter of fact, no environmental assessment takes place in those projects at all. If there is a federal trigger to those projects, they are scoped so narrowly that it doesn't look at the entire process. It comes down to an issue of scoping. We've had some battles with some departments in Nova Scotia about that. If that could be expanded, that would be a good thing.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Thank you very much.

Mr. Kneen.

Mr. Jamie Kneen: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I can think of one example that's current. That's the Nanisivik Mine, the north end of Baffin Island. It's in the process of closing down. It pre-exists both CEAA and in fact FEARO, or the environmental assessment review guidelines order, and it certainly pre-exists the creation of Nunavut. It's there now, and it's closing down. Nobody seems to have a good handle on what kind of contamination there is on this site, what's going to be required to clean it up and close it down appropriately, or what to do with the facilities. It's not clear who's going to pay for that or how. It is clear that it has been in production for some years and changed hands a couple of times. A fair bit of wealth has been extracted from that. Some employment has been provided to Inuit locally from Arctic Bay and throughout Baffin, but mostly not. So it's just a good example of the kind of thing you're talking about, which we're trying to get away from.

In the case of the Voisey's Bay development, the panel review was pretty positive and pretty unequivocal that there could be a positive contribution to the sustainable development of the region, if not that particular deposit. I don't think anyone thinks of mining as a sustainable development activity. If it were developed with appropriate environmental protection and over a long enough period of time to allow broader community involvement, and not just training and jobs but also diversification and a contribution to the overall well-being of the region, then it could be considered to be a positive contribution. That was actually the panel's report.

So that kind of thinking is already out there. That's the kind of thing I think we're trying to foster.

Á (1115)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan): Good, thank you.

Anyone else then? Any other questions?

I thank the witnesses very much for being here today. You certainly aided in the chair's understanding of the issue and brought up a lot of very good new points. I'm sure that other members who are on the committee echo that sentiment as well.

Just prior to adjournment, I think the committee requires some consultation on the setting of our hours. We normally sit between nine and eleven. Members have two committees. I'm supposed to be on the health committee right now. Members have other committees they have to sit on at eleven o'clock. So I think we have to revisit the scheduling of the hours.

The committee is adjourned. Thank you.