ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, September 22, 1998

• 0914

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.)): Thank you very much. My name is Gar Knutson. I'm the member of Parliament for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I'm sitting in on behalf of the chair, the Honourable Charles Caccia.

It's my pleasure today to greet the witnesses. We're especially honoured to have Phil Fontaine, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, with us today. Technically, we've booked the room for three hours. I don't know that we need three hours, but our guests should take as much time as they feel they need. I'll cut you off if I think attentions are wavering. But I think the plan should be that everyone gives their presentation and then we'll go to questions. Does that make sense? People can take as much time as they need.

• 0915

Maybe we can begin by asking our guests to introduce themselves, to say where they're from and who they're with. Mr. Hill, do you want to start?

Mr. Dave Hill (Band Councillor, Six Nations of Grand River): Dave Hill, Six Nations band councillor. I'm the chairman of environmental waste management.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak (President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): Hi, I'm Okalik Eegeesiak, president of ITC. I'm sure you're as happy to see me as Chief Phil Fontaine is.

Ms. Siobhan Arnott (Senior Policy Analyst, Assembly of First Nations): Hello, my name is Siobhan Arnott. I'm with the environment secretariat of the Assembly of First Nations.

Chief Phil Fontaine (National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): I'm Phil Fontaine, national chief, Assembly of First Nations, and I'm really pleased to be here with Okalik Eegeesiak.

Mr. Henry Lickers (Director, Department of the Environment, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne): My name is Henry Lickers. I'm the director of the department of the environment for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and scientific co-chair for the environmental committee of the AFN.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks very much.

Mr. Fontaine, would you like to begin?

Chief Phil Fontaine: Yes, thank you very much. Before I go into my presentation, I just want to inform the standing committee members here that I'm going to make the presentation and then I have to excuse myself. I'm going to leave Mr. Lickers and Siobhan Arnott to continue with the rest of the proceedings, if that's quite acceptable here. Thank you very much.

First of all, we would like to thank the standing committee members for the invitation to the Assembly of First Nations to appear here before the standing committee. The Assembly of First Nations was involved in the 1995 standing committee proceedings and, once again, welcome the opportunity to be before the committee.

We applaud the federal government's efforts to create an act more inclusive of first nations people, and we only regret that the federal government failed to fully engage first nations in the process of creating a renewed CEPA.

In its current form, the bill reflects a half-hearted attempt on the part of the federal government to include first nations in what should be a significant piece of legislation designed to provide the highest level of environmental protection to all of the people living within Canada. This leaves first nations without a regulatory framework that would provide their people with the basic level of environmental protection enjoyed by other Canadians.

Bill C-32 does not reflect the federal government's commitment, under the Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada: An Agenda for Action and Research, to a renewed partnership with aboriginal people. It fails to provide first nations with (1) adequate representation, (2) recognition of their existing environmental management regimes, or (3) opportunities for capacity building in the area of environmental protection.

The Assembly of First Nations has provided the standing committee with a brief containing a clause-by-clause analysis of CEPA. This document details our concerns regarding first nations representation, definitions for aboriginal lands and governments, the non-derogation clause, aboriginal and treaty rights, equivalency measures and capacity building.

Today we wish to speak to the document's most salient points: consultation, national advisory committee representation, capacity building, and equivalency provisions.

First is consultation. Canada's fiduciary relationship with aboriginal peoples requires the federal government to consult with first nations before taking any measures that may impact their traditional treaty rights, an obligation upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Delgamuukw, 1998. The federal government has a duty to engage first nations in a consultation process to examine the impacts of this act on aboriginal and treaty rights.

The consultation clauses inserted throughout Bill C-32, for example under clause 47(2) on information gathering, are too limited in scope and do not obligate the minister to consult with first nations people whose environment may be directly impacted by CEPA's provisions.

The Assembly of First Nations recommends inclusion of a separate reference to first nations people. This would require the minister to consult not only with members of the committee who are representative of first nation governments but also with the first nation governments and people directly affected by the proposed provision.

On the national advisory committee representation, the inclusion of aboriginal representatives on the national advisory committee sends a positive signal to first nations regarding the government's desire to work in partnership with aboriginal people.

• 0920

Our concerns focus on the arbitrary nature used to select first nations representatives. The committee structure should reflect existing first nations structures of governance—for example, the first nations nationhood structure, i.e. the Iroquois Confederacy—or include representatives of the national first nations, Metis and Inuit organizations who are accountable to aboriginal people throughout Canada.

With regard to capacity building, first nations have an invaluable role to play in environmental protection. However, while many aboriginal communities have members with some technical environmental knowledge, the majority of communities are only beginning to build their expertise in this area.

The federal government may build first nations environmental management capacity by sponsoring and assisting them to:

(1) acquire training in testing, analysis, inspections, enforcement, emergency response, monitoring and reporting;

(2) enter into an agreements respecting the administration of the act;

(3) undertake research and data collection related to monitoring environmental quality, pollution prevention, environmental emergencies or the control or abatement of pollution;

(4) establish a first nations environmental registry;

(5) initiate investigations and environmental protection actions; and

(6) acquire positions as review officers, inspectors, investigators and analysts.

With regard to equivalency provisions, under CEPA the AFN recommends measures to ensure recognition of first nations environmental protection regimes. These regimes should supersede CEPA when they contain equivalent or more stringent provisions than the ones found in CEPA. The equivalency provisions should apply to all first nations governments with equivalent or more stringent environmental protection regulations, including permitting systems, whether or not they have negotiated self-government agreements.

In conclusion, the federal government must address all of our concerns in order for the Assembly of First Nations to support the passage of Bill C-32. Our concerns, tabled in our detailed brief, include first nations representation; recognition of traditional knowledge; clarification of the definitions for aboriginal lands and governments and the non-derogation clause; aboriginal and treaty rights; equivalency measures; and the provisions of opportunities to build capacity amongst first nations.

Once again, we thank the members of the standing committee for inviting the Assembly of First Nations to make a presentation regarding CEPA. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thank you very much for that. Who would like to go next?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak:

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in her native language]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Okalik Eegeesiak, president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, and with me is my executive assistant, Ms. Violet Ford.

ITC has appeared before you on two previous occasions concerning amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. ITC strongly supports an effort to strengthen Canada's obligations in this regard, and you may recall our concern over the delays in passing this bill's predecessor, Bill C-74. At the time, we acknowledged that while still needing improvement the bill would be a small step forward in stemming the flow of contaminants in the Arctic.

For your information, ITC and other aboriginal leaders met with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment in Inuvik a couple of weeks ago, and there we also expressed concern on a number of national and provincial initiatives that aboriginal peoples have not been involved in and that we should be involved in. A copy of my presentation is available, if anyone would like a copy.

ITC appears before you today, on behalf of Canada's Inuit, to reaffirm our commitment to seeing a strong legislative and regulatory basis for pollution prevention and elimination.

On matters of national concern, ITC can speak for Canada's 41,000 Inuit living in 55 communities in the Northwest Territories, Quebec and Labrador. That's why I sort of joked around in the beginning; I just wanted to stress that I am a national leader for the Inuit. ITC acts on this responsibility in close cooperation with the six Inuit regional organizations, and we have developed our presentation in consultation with the regions.

• 0925

Inuit form a large majority of residents in Canada's Arctic region. For the most part a coastal people, Inuit continue to derive much of our physical and spiritual sustenance from the land and sea. Assertions or evidence that country food is contaminated not only challenge the integrity of the Inuit food supply but also risk undermining confidence in the environment and in harvesting activities as a source of personal and collective identity and well-being. The implications of country food being dirty or poison are unacceptable.

Marine mammals in the Arctic function as a toxic reservoir of contaminants due to their high fat content, longevity, and the potential for bioaccumulation. This makes us particularly vulnerable because of our reliance on these species for food. Traditional food items, including such things like Muktuk, are known to contain a wide variety of contaminants, including PCBs and toxaphene. Being on top of the food chain means that I am collecting harmful amounts of these deadly toxins from the tradition foods I consume.

The recent State of the Arctic Environment Report, published by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program under the auspices of the Arctic Council, reported that Inuit who consume significant quantities of local food products have levels of certain toxins well in excess of Federal Department of health standards. Data from certain studies indicates that some Inuit women have two to ten times the blood levels of PCBs when compared to women in southern Canada. The health implications of these results are of great concern to Inuit and public health officials. I know you are as concerned as we are.

Domestically, Canada has responded in a variety of ways, most recently through the Arctic environment strategy and now through the northern contaminants program, which seeks to develop a reliable database on current levels and communicate appropriate information to Inuit. All these responses are laudable and welcome; however, it is only through strong, effective national legislation and international efforts that mitigative measures will be implemented in the short term and that the contaminants accumulated in the Arctic will be eliminated in the long term.

Reduction and eventual elimination of domestically and externally generated toxins and pollution remain the objective of Inuit. This will require not only strong national legislation but also a firm commitment to promote similar regulations through legally binding international instruments. Conversely, if national legislation is inadequate, Canada will have no basis for pursuing high standards in international negotiations. It is from this perspective that ITC, on behalf of Canadian Inuit, is reviewing the current proposal.

On May 3, 1995, ITC tabled a substantial brief to the standing committee on the then proposed Bill C-74. The rationale, motivation, concerns and standing in this matter have not changed since that time. I would just like to highlight one point of that response.

ITC and Inuit must have the opportunity to be fully involved in decision-making processes in a timely, accessible fashion before any activities such as waste disposal or substance release, which may affect our lives and livelihoods, are approved. This is consistent with the spirit and intent of the environmental protection and management provisions of our land claims treaties, but also with some of the reasons that Phil Fontaine pointed out earlier. Canada has to be cautious and must take ownership and national and international leadership in environmental protection, with our help.

• 0930

It is worth repeating here the purpose of this bill as set out in the declaration:

It is hereby declared that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canadians and that the primary purpose of this Act is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention.

Prevention and elimination are our goals. Does this bill in its present form create a legislative and regulatory basis for these goals? Unfortunately, we have to say it doesn't. While recognizing some improvements from the previous draft, we feel the overall effect of this text does not significantly contribute to the eventual elimination of the problems we are confronting in the Arctic region. I'm sure if we had the same problem down here, this legislation would be stronger.

The procedures set out in this draft are designed to manage toxic substances and control their release, rather than eliminate at source and prevent production. This is a fundamental failing of the bill.

The discretionary powers of the minister throughout the draft, but particularly with regard to the objective of virtual elimination, do not conform to the precautionary principle, that being “If you're not sure, play it safe.” The bill defines virtual elimination in a way that allows for the continued generation and use of toxic substances.

Rather than full discretionary authority of the ministers following screening for new priority substances, stricter accountability should be introduced. Generally speaking, the procedures available in part 5 for challenging ministerial actions or lack of action are too onerous.

Given the geographic and climactic characteristics of the Arctic, we continue to recommend it be declared a contaminant elimination zone.

With regard to ocean dumping and hazardous waste disposal in general, our position remains unchanged. Removing materials that have been transported to the Arctic must be part of the cost of doing business. We do not accept that ocean dumping could ever be an environmentally preferable option. Why don't we dump it in the lakes down here?

We welcome the involvement of aboriginal partners on the national advisory committee. However, we submit that the contribution of Inuit and other aboriginal peoples regarding the implementation of the bill's objectives should be more clearly represented in the preamble and administrative duties. For example, the role of traditional knowledge must be recognized on a par with science in the process of making decisions.

The present proposal continues to cause ITC serious concern, more so than did its predecessor. The federal government would have the ability to delegate many of its responsibilities for the environment to the provinces and territories. This abdication is not supported by any obvious transfer of financial or human resources. We consider the net result could be to drive down standards rather than create upward harmonization without our involvement.

Furthermore, we again respectfully remind the committee that the federal government has a very specific fiduciary obligation to the Inuit and lands covered by our land claims treaties and also by the Constitution. Then these obligations cannot simply be devolved without assuring Inuit that any such transfer of power or jurisdiction will neither abrogate nor derogate from their treaty rights. This concern is specifically directed to protecting the principles of Inuit participation in environmental protection and management and the co-management institutions established for that purpose.

Since our May 1995 presentation, several important events have occurred. Domestically, the royal commission concluded its work and the federal response, Gathering Strength, was released. Gathering Strength is intended as a vehicle for achieving sustainable development and improving the quality of life of aboriginal peoples in the north, while preserving the ecological integrity of the environment. ITC is committed to working with the federal government to ensure a proper delivery of these commitments.

• 0935

We have also responded specifically to the document Gathering Strength, stressing that we do need our own Inuit-specific response to the royal commission report, and Inuit-specific programs and policies.

On the international front, the Arctic Council has also been formed, bringing together the combined efforts of the eight Arctic states and international indigenous organizations. It represents an international cooperative initiative to pursue environmental protection, while at the same time focusing on the economic, social, and cultural well-being of northern peoples.

As recently as last week, Canada's foreign minister, Lloyd Axworthy, as host of the first ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Iqaluit, released a paper called “Toward a Northern Foreign Policy for Canada”, which contains some very strong commitments for harnessing international cooperation to combat and prevent pollution in the Arctic. Further, as the paper states, Canada has also broadened its own concept of human rights to accommodate the right to live in a clean environment—a vital concern in the north.

This brings a new dimension to the convergence of Canada's domestic and international activities, adding to the necessity of ensuring that any new legislation be consistent with these policy objectives.

Inuit are expecting that any amendments to CEPA will have as their objective the prevention and elimination of contaminants in the Arctic. As objectives, prevention and elimination must be supported by strong, consistent, and enforceable domestic legislation. Moreover, the federal government should continue strong international efforts for stricter standards, better monitoring, and significant reductions in contaminants emissions from pollutant-source countries.

We, as Inuit, did not create the industrial pollution that is entering the Arctic; neither do we benefit in any measure from the industries that produce these pollutants—not that we would support them if we benefited. However, it is we who bear the consequences. If Arctic lands, air, waters, and animals are contaminated, it is we who will suffer the physical, spiritual, economic, and social impacts. It should not be surprising, therefore, that Inuit continue to take a very strong position in advocating for and demanding a tough, effective Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

With regard to our involvement as Inuit, and under our land claims agreements, it is also Arctic contaminants and the environment that affect us the most directly, most immediately, and most personally, so we have to be involved in drafting legislation—and I hope you heard some of our concerns today—and we have to be involved in the implementation of your regulations.

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in her native language]

I'm here for as long as you need me, if you have any questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks very much, President Eegeesiak.

What we'll do, with your permission, is hear from Mr. Hill, band councillor with the Six Nations of Grand River.

Mr. Dave Hill: Good morning. I'd like to thank the standing committee for letting me speak today.

We didn't have too much time to put this together, about two days, and this is some of the stuff we've come up with. I don't know whether you want me to read the whole thing. I'll just go through some of the comments we have and some of the things that should be changed.

The first thing—and I speak only for the Six Nations of the Grand River—is that we cannot support this bill as it is now. It has some good parts in it, and a lot of bad parts. Some of these things will have to be changed.

• 0940

Following are some comments on environmental protection of Indian lands:

We recommend that a new part in CEPA be created that deals specifically with environmental protection on aboriginal lands. The new part should be written so it is flexible enough to meet the diverse needs of all aboriginal governments. Here is what the Six Nations think.

The new part should be written so that:

(1) Aboriginal governments that have chosen full self-government could be exempted if they have environmental management regimes, including enforcement powers in their self-government status, and if they have enacted environmental pollution prevention measures under these regimes.

(2) There should be exemption of aboriginal governments that have chosen partial self-government and that have environmental management regimes including enforcement powers in their self-government status, and have enacted environmental pollution prevention measures under these regimes.

(3) Aboriginal governments that have chosen full or partial self-government with environmental management regimes and that have enacted environmental protection and pollution prevention measures, but decide to withdraw those measures, can again opt to fall under the authority of the part of CEPA devoted to environmental protection on aboriginal lands.

(4) Aboriginal governments that do not desire self-government but instead choose to remain under the authority and administration of the Government of Canada would be subject to environmental management regulations under the new part.

In addition, the new part could include:

- authority to create regulations;

- power to use interim orders;

- authority to designate qualified first nations persons as CEPA inspectors and analysts;

- provisions to further pollution prevention, including measures to deal effectively with environmental emergencies;

- authority for the creation of environmental quality objectives, guidelines and codes of practice, and for environmental monitoring;

- enforcement powers of CEPA, including inspector powers, search and seizure provisions, injunctions and administration orders;

- CEPA penalties with their deterrent quality and creative court orders could be used for violators;

- provisions for the making of regulations to direct payment or part of all of the revenues from fines to an aboriginal government to use for an environmental purpose of its own choosing.

The new part should be specifically targeted at the environment concerns of aboriginal governments and should be worded so as to ensure national baseline requirements, so there would be a consistent minimum level of environmental protection on all aboriginal lands.

We have some special comments on certain clauses in Bill C-32. Subclause 2(2) states:

For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(m) and (n), if this Act does not provide for the avoidance of duplication where measures can be taken under this Act and under another Act of Parliament to address a matter affecting the environment or human health, the Minister, the Minister of Health where appropriate, and the minister responsible for the other Act will jointly determine whether the measures that can be taken under the other Act are appropriate and sufficient to address the matter.

Subclause 2(2) would make the CEPA a residual statute rather than a cornerstone of federal environmental law and policy.

We make the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: Subclause 2(2) should be removed or reworded to ensure that a minimum standard is enforced. As a minimum, it should state that CEPA may not apply if the other act or measure is more stringent than the CEPA requirements and the responsible ministers agree.

Part 2, clauses 11 to 42: We support the creation of an environmental registry; however, more rights to the public should be included.

Recommendation 2: Part 2 should include the right to adequate notice and comment for new approvals, regulations and policies as a basic right for the public.

• 0945

We support the creation of the public right of environmental protection action. However, it appears that the ability of the public to use this right is limited by qualifications and restrictions.

Recommendation 3: The Environmental Protection Act provision in part 2 should be amended to allow easier use of these provisions by the public.

Part 4, clauses 56 to 63, pollution: We support the pollution prevention plans; however, we believe these provisions should be more comprehensive and mandatory to be effective at preventing pollution.

Recommendation 4: Part 4 should be amended to make the development of pollution prevention plans mandatory for facilities that use, manufacture or generate CEPA-toxic substances or any substances found to be toxic under CEPA.

Part 5, controlling toxic substances, clauses 64 to 103: We support the general intent of this part; however, some major weaknesses must be improved. The definition of virtual elimination in clause 64 must be rejected because it legalizes the use and generation of most toxic substances; it goes against the concept of pollution prevention plans; it is not consistent with Canada's international obligations as provided in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States.

The definition of virtual elimination as required by the International Joint Commission is acceptable.

Recommendation 5: The definition of virtual elimination in part 5 should mean the elimination of the production, use and generation of a substance.

The IJC definition of virtual elimination should be used. The definition of toxic substances in clause 65 should include and recognize the concept of inherent toxicity.

Recommendation 6: The definition of toxic substances in part 5 should include and recognize inherent toxic properties of substances such as acute lethality, chronic/sub-chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, and quite a few others.

Part 6, clauses 104 to 105: Clause 104 defines living organism as meaning a substance that is an animate product of biotechnology. This definition does not include all the products of biotechnology. Some important categories are left out, such as viruses, DNA fragments, and certain types of feeds and foods. Also, the definition of what “living” means is unclear; therefore a debate of what is alive or dead would be encountered, and also a similar debate on what is animate and inanimate would occur. Therefore, the current definition of living organism is limited and unclear.

Recommendation 7: The words “living organism” in part 6 should be replaced with words “biotechnology product” and be defined as meaning a substance that is a product of biotechnology.

Part 9, government operations and federal and aboriginal land, clauses 206 to 215: Part 9 should be amended so that the conflict between regulations made under CEPA and regulations made under other acts would require that the more stringent regulations be applied.

Recommendation 9: A general prohibition provision should be included that states that no person shall cause an adverse effect to the natural environment. A person would be defined as an individual, company, government agency or non-government agency.

Now, we didn't have too long to draw this up; we only had a couple of days. But I imagine we could come up with a lot more if we had a week or so to go at it. I think when I get back home we'll be going over that book again and we will have more comments. We'll send them in.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I think your presentation has been very good.

Mr. Dave Hill: We have more. Once I get home and go over that book, we can send in a lot more.

• 0950

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): They're very pointed and they're relevant.

Mr. Dave Hill: We have problems in our first nations, but nowhere in that book does it tell us how to fix those problems. We have 280 uncapped gas wells in our reserve and some of them are 50 feet from people's houses. Now, how can we fix that? In our village, our fire department has to monitor our storm sewer system because there's gas leaking there all the time, and we can't find out where it's coming from. In the last three years it has cost us almost $200,000 to dig up some abandoned tanks that are half full of gas, and they're still there. We don't know where it's all coming from.

We have a lot of concerns now and none of this addresses it. But we will read that book over again and we will have some more concerns that we think should be in that book. We've caught this much in only two days.

I would like to thank this committee for letting me speak.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr Gar Knutson): Thanks very much for coming today.

I know the committee members will have some questions. So maybe we can begin with Mr. Gilmour of the Reform Party.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to all of you. I certainly appreciate your coming before the committee today.

Ms. Eegeesiak, perhaps you can expand on something. You mentioned that the levels of PCB in women's blood were two to ten times that for women in the south. Where is that coming from? Is it airborne? Is it water-borne? Is it from stuff that was left from DEW line sites or industrial activity? What is the source?

What I'm getting at is this: is it a general contaminated site that can be cleaned up, or is it broader—airborne or water-borne—so that it's going to require different legislation than would be in CEPA, because we're talking international agreements? Can you just narrow in on where the contaminants are coming from?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: It's a combination of all of the above. That's why we are so adamant about elimination and prevention in my presentation and in our positions. It's a combination of all of the above. It's airborne and through water and through old sites that are being cleaned up now with the federal government's assistance and through agreements with the regional Inuit organizations.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Right. When we're dealing with CEPA, one portion of the problem is what is already in existence; the others are prevention, to prevent what's going to happen in the future.

With regard to the Arctic group that was visiting the north recently, because a lot of the issues in the north are not just those of Canada but of Finland and Russia, was there any resolve to deal with issues like ocean dumping, or was it just a lot of political rhetoric that didn't seem to go anywhere?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I would say that whenever governments get together that's always a positive thing, and whenever they get together up north it's even more positive, so that they can see what kinds of situations and what kinds of environment we live under.

With regard to any positive developments or resolutions, there was support for a project on sustainable development, to be headed by the U.S.; and there was support for a project on children and youth, with an emphasis on traditional knowledge and combining that with science, to be headed by Canada.

So I'd say every time we have international ministers getting together, especially up north and in Canada, that's always a positive development.

• 0955

I don't think I answered your question very well, but I hope I've helped.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thank you.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I was sitting in for one of my colleagues at the last meeting when senior officials explained to us the differences between the former bill and the one now before the committee. Since I'm a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I'm greatly interested in part 9 of the bill concerning Crown and aboriginal lands.

Before broaching that subject, I'd like to ask Ms. Eegeesiak to bring us up to speed on what's been happening with the Circumpolar Conference. Canada's Inuit belong to this international organization representing six or seven countries with circumpolar indigenous peoples. You are in close contact with people from other countries and perhaps you can tell us what type of environmental protection these countries are pushing for. The Circumpolar Conference is an important organization. I'd appreciate it if you could tell us whether environmental issues frequently come up for discussion and whether there is any discussion in particular of US bases and of the many problems that were apparently left behind when these sites were abandoned. Could you give us a status report on this matter?

My next question is as much for Mr. Hill as it is for Ms. Eegeesiak and Ms. Arnott. Currently, there are agreements in place respecting self-government and land claims. It is common knowledge that many agreements, which we could call contemporary treaties, have been signed recently. Ms. Eegeesiak, such treaties were recently concluded in Nunavut and in Inuvialuit, and others will certainly be signed in Nunavik and Labrador. As you know, Ms. Arnott, the Nisga'a, the Yukon First Nations, recently signed several treaties. In my view, some of the provisions in these treaties go as far as those in the bill under consideration. Will these treaties be subject to the provisions of this bill, or will the opposite apply, given that these treaties already contain provisions as a result of which the bill will apply more or less to your regions?

I don't know whether you understood my question, given the problems with the interpretation. Please go ahead.

[English]

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Could I ask Violet Ford to help me out with this question, and I'll try to answer some of the treaty questions.

The one I am most familiar with, with regard to any agreements with Canada and the spirit and intent of these agreements, is the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, where Nunavut and the Inuit are supposed to be consulted in any international agreements or domestic agreements or initiatives that affect our harvesting. To date that has not happened. To date that has only happened when we have reacted to Canadian positions.

• 1000

With regards to the Arctic Council meetings, one of their priorities is sustainable development, and that's environmental management and cooperation.

Violet, would you help me out with the answers to Mr. Bachand's questions? Violet Ford is my assistant.

Ms. Violet Ford (Executive Assistant to President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada): First of all, I couldn't hear very well when I was sitting back there. Could you repeat the part of the question that still needs an answer?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Do you understand French?

Ms. Violet Ford: No, I don't.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: In essence, I asked Ms. Eegeesiak the following questions: have the six or seven countries belonging to the Circumpolar Conference passed environmental legislation or regulations and do they share your concern? I also wanted a brief report on the environmental disaster left behind by the US when it abandoned its bases. This was something that was brought to my attention and I would like you to comment. Of course, Ms. Eegeesiak provided a partial response as to the impact of the bill on contemporary treaties that have already been signed, in particular those signed with Nunavut and Inuvialuit.

[English]

Ms. Violet Ford: First of all, I'll make a clarification. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference represents four countries: Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Russia. The environmental concerns are very similar across those four circumpolar countries, Russia probably being the worst environmentally. With regards to Greenland, I believe the environmental issues have to do with the American bases there as well as the marine issues. In Alaska it's the same, with the American sites, and in Canada of course it's the DEW line sites. A couple of weeks ago there was a meeting in Nunavut dealing with DEW line site clean-up. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference, at their general assembly in Greenland in July, passed a resolution specifically dealing with the clean-up of the DEW line sites.

I don't believe the environmental legislation in those four circumpolar countries is similar. I believe Canada probably is leading in that regard, although there still needs to be stronger legislation dealing with environmental protection in the north. When I say “the north” I mean south of 60 as well, Labrador and northern Quebec.

With regards to the land claims agreements and how the existing land claims agreements address this issue, yes, the land claims agreements do address the management of Inuit environment, but only to some extent and only with regard to various parties. The land claims agreements, with the negotiation with the federal government, did not address pollutants coming from elsewhere and how the federal government would deal with the countries whose pollutants are travelling to the Arctic. A lot of the pollutants in the Arctic are coming from Mexico and Asia. How the federal government is going to deal with that matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the existing land claims agreements, and that is something the federal government has to deal with.

The federal government has an obligation under the Inuit Land Claims Agreement to deal with the environment, and they have a fiduciary obligation to protect aboriginal rights, and “aboriginal rights” means aboriginal rights to a clean environment. We are going as far as to say that a clean environment is a basic human right. It's a basic Inuit right to be able to continue with our culture and to promote it, and we cannot do that without a clean environment. Of all the aboriginal groups, we are probably the most directly involved with the environment on a day-to-day basis. We don't live in urban centres. We need the environment to survive on a day-to-day basis.

• 1005

The Arctic Council, which I think was the group you referred to earlier, met in Iqaluit last week dealing with sustainable development initiatives for the north. I believe Canada will become more involved in those initiatives.

This is something this standing committee should not take lightly. I think you guys should be taking notes here today and taking our positions as Inuit seriously, not only with Canada as a signatory to the Arctic Council, but as signatory to the land claims agreements.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I'm sure we are taking your evidence very seriously.

Does President Eegeesiak want to jump in?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Thank you.

I'd just like to acknowledge your knowledge of Inuit issues. When you asked about the five or six countries, I thought you were talking about the most recent meeting in Iqaluit of the Arctic Council. That's seven or eight countries.

Inuit met internationally in Greenland this summer to talk about the environment and sustainable development international issues that impact on Inuit lives. As in Canada, internationally Inuit think of ourselves as one people. We don't separate ourselves north of 60 and south of 60, as some governments have tried to do. We just wanted to point that out, that internationally and nationally and locally we think of ourselves as one people.

We acknowledge your knowledge of some of the meetings that have been happening and some of the meetings that will be going on. I hope the rest of your colleagues are being educated.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Lickers.

Mr. Henry Lickers: I bring you greetings. I see many friends at the table, many people I have met in the past. I'm honoured to speak here today. I bring you greetings from the Mohawk people of Akwesasne. Also, as a custom of our people, I send greetings and thanksgiving to all of creation for us that we have a good day here today.

I look at the question that has just been asked about treaties. Because I work at Akwesasne and sit on that border, we work within the United States and Canada. The approaches of Canada and the United States are very different when it comes to first nations people and their involvement in the environment. I look at the bill before us as a real Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde bill for us. On one hand I want to say we need this; this is the best thing that can ever happen. On the other hand, it doesn't give me the tools or the power or the ability to be able to help correct the problems in our communities.

In the United States the presidential policies that were brought out by Reagan and supported by Clinton translated the powers of the Environmental Protection Act, the potable water act, and the Clean Air Act to those first nations people who could take on those responsibilities within their communities. Akwesasne is one of the few places in the United States that has that power, a regulatory power, to be able to take up and influence the decision-making within our community.

In Alaska there are Inuit peoples on the north shore that can regulate and have those same types of powers. So there's a real interesting thing when you talk about circumpolar or in the south with us, where we have people who have the ability to understand the issue, to be able to regulate the issue, to be able to act on the issue, have the scientific knowledge to do the studies to support the issue, yet we have no power to do that.

• 1010

I move 15 feet from my office across the border, and on that other side of the border I have another environmental department that runs those things routinely. We're not a different people. We operate and know what we need to have done in our communities.

Again, with Indian Affairs as an ally, we have a lot of trouble with that type of idea, because the people there don't have enough knowledge of the local issues to be able to deal with them. It's the local people who really have the knowledge of what's in the area and what has to be dealt with immediately. So support to those local communities in order to deal with their problems I think is really quite important.

I want to tell you that I am very supportive of the Environmental Protection Act and think this is a good thing. However, I don't see in the act a place for my people. Not just the native people in my community, but those native scientists who we have working within our community who can understand those issues have a very hard time working with that. But I think there is capability that we can, with modification to the act. And Chief Fontaine talked about the equivalency, where our people do have the capability to take on the powers of this act to be able to run it ourselves. But you never can do anything alone; you always have to work in cooperation with your neighbours and people around, which we are doing at Akwesasne.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks very much for that.

We'll go to Ms. Kraft Sloan and then Mr. Herron.

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

I'd like to welcome President Eegeesiak here. I was in Greenland with you, and it was a wonderful opportunity to learn more about Inuit issues. I was very impressed with the level of concern and the range of understanding of environmental issues. It seemed like for every topic there was over a period of a week, environment was a very strong thread.

Hello to Violet as well.

Ms. Ford mentioned a resolution that had to do with contaminated sites. I believe there was a resolution with the POPs issue, persistent organic pollutants. I'm wondering if you could comment on that one as well. That came from the ICC assembly.

Ms. Violet Ford: I can't comment on that. I wasn't involved in that issue at all when I was in Greenland. I haven't seen the resolution itself.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I was just wondering if you could clarify what the resolution was for the committee, if you wanted to put it on the record.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I'm sorry that we didn't think to bring any of those resolutions with us with regard to the environment from the international meeting, but we could send those resolutions to you. I know there was one with regard to POPs and the concern that again Inuit have on these pollutants.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If you could forward any of the resolutions from that meeting that have relevance to CEPA, that would be very helpful.

All of the witnesses talked about the precautionary principle. I'm just wondering if we could talk a little bit more about the precautionary principle and what it means for aboriginal peoples. President Eegeesiak had mentioned some of the issues related to the Inuit in the north and how important it is to be able to operationalize this in the bill. I'm wondering if anyone else wants to add any other comments about the importance of the precautionary principle for aboriginal people.

Mr. Henry Lickers: Precautionary principle is a nice term. I like that term.

When our people look at precautionary principle as far as the Haudenosaunee are concerned, we talk about the concept of seven generations. We have to look into the future seven generations to see how anything we do today impacts on those seven generations.

There's a huge matrix of things that we have to consider. Our thanksgiving address of the Haudenosaunee lists something like 18 different things we have to be concerned with, and those 18 things go from the sky to the earth to the smallest crawly things in the environment. We also have to look at the concept of scale, from the smallest virus to the spiritual realm we exist in. I'm talking to you as both a native person and a biologist. When I look at landscape ecology and the way we look at the world, the precautionary process and principle to us is that we really have to look at a large matrix of things that are going on and make sure that the impacts in there are not going to affect that seventh generation.

• 1015

This lays a heavy responsibility on those people who live today. We see that if we destroy that world, we just won't have a place to live in the future. In the bill it's translated into more legalistic terms, but for the spirit of our people, that seven generations means that's what we have to look forward to.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do you agree with the definition of the cautionary principle in the bill, or would you like to see amendment to that? It's in the preamble.

Mr. Chair, do you want me to read it into the record?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Yes.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: “—committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation—”.

We've had other witnesses who have echoed a series of concerns around this particular definition. I'm just wondering how these witnesses feel about the definition. Anybody? Is this something you'd like to comment on later?

Mr. Henry Lickers: Yes, later. Right at the moment we haven't heard any discussion on it ourselves.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Okay, that's good.

This is a very important principle for CEPA in terms of the approach of CEPA, how CEPA will be implemented. If you're not able to comment at this time, perhaps you could send us something later about how you see the precautionary principle operationalized in the act, if you have some concerns about whether it is operationalized currently in the act, or how it needs to be reinforced in the legislation itself, not just in the preamble.

I believe, from the testimony you've given today, that this is an important principle for aboriginal peoples, and we need to understand from your perspective how it's reflected in the act and how it can be adjusted. It's not only the sections that deal with Indian lands that we have to be aware of and the effect on aboriginal peoples, but it's how the principles are reflected in the act as well and how they're defined.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I think everybody will agree that what you heard from ITC was the prevention and elimination of pollutants and stuff like that. Part of my presentation included that the proposed bill defines virtual elimination in a way that allows for the continued generation and use of toxic substances, and this is not acceptable to Inuit. You know, go play in the minefield. It's a conclusion, I guess.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: You're not alone in your concerns on the definition of virtual elimination.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I think that's an international concern and a national concern.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I know it's an international concern.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Do I have more time, Mr. Chair?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Do you mind waiting for the second round?

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I'll wait for the second round.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thank you very much.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I'm glad you asked her to wait for the second round, because she took most of my questions.

• 1020

The first thing I would like to say, though, and I think this bears repeating, is something that's not necessarily all that profound. The comment was made that if ocean dumping was such a good idea, why didn't we do it in our own lakes, in our own bays, and in more southern regions? I think that kind of comment bears repeating, because pollutants in our north don't go away. They go immediately into our food chains, and in particular, your food chains. You are very much innocent victims.

We were fortunate, in one of the last sessions we had last spring, to have the opportunity to hear a very poignant series of witnesses with respect to the lack of leadership the government has taken with respect to the Dene. One of the things I was pleased to hear, but it's something I'm a little concerned about, is that you said that for all international treaties the Government of Canada engages in where there are issues that affect your harvesting rights, you are supposed to have direct input into those sorts of negotiations. In particular, there was reference to that in regard to the POPs conference we held in Montreal in June, and also with respect to this piece of legislation.

Can you tell me the amount of input you've had directly with the minister and the department with respect to CEPA and, for that matter, the POPs conference? I think it actually dovetails with what we're talking about here today.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: With regard to the POPs conference in June, my understanding is the Canadian position was drafted and approved with no real input from the Inuit.

With regard to CEPA, my presentation to you is by no means a full consultation with the Inuit. If there was full consultation, for example, we would be given resources to consult with our people, and they would be given resources to do research on CEPA and issues like CEPA on the environment and sustainable development. So input and participation from the Inuit has not been adequate.

Mr. John Herron: You say we didn't have direct input with regard to the POPs conference or CEPA from the Inuit people, who in all manner of speaking are probably the people most susceptible to this sort of legislation because it ultimately affects your food chain, and to some degree the viability of your people, as we saw in the case with the Dene—they've actually lost generations of individuals.

There's one comment that I think Ms. Kraft Sloan touched upon, regarding some concern with respect to the precautionary principle. Maybe Rick can help me out, but the term “cost-effective” is utilized in that preamble as well. Could you comment on those two words in terms of what that means to you in that part of the preamble? I know you haven't had a chance to read through it per se, but I look at it from a cost-effective perspective. Without having more direct involvement, the cost could be human life in that regard. I'd like to see if you would care to comment on that.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: What is human life to you?

Mr. John Herron: No, but I mean whether the word “cost-effective” would have any bearing in that term of precautionary principle. If not, I'm sure the committee would be very interested in having a written response at a later date.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Yes. I would prefer a written response, because that's a broad and very focused issue.

• 1025

But one of the things I used as an example to the environment ministers in Inuvik was that I know I'm eating toxic foods. Foods are toxic, but if nothing is done now or in the near future, as Mr. Lickers was alluding to, these foods that I'm eating will affect my grandchildren a lot faster than they are affecting me. Right now some Inuit are cautioned about breast-feeding their babies because of the contaminants in their bodies.

Mr. John Herron: Would I be wrong to say that you'd be interested in meeting with the minister with respect to CEPA on a more consultative basis—

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: —before this legislation is finalized and before any formal position is expanded on with respect to POPs?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I take it that we have your support and your recommendation to the minister.

Mr. John Herron: Yes, you would.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Next on my list is Mr. Lincoln. But before he begins, Mr. Laliberte, did you want to get at it? So it's Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Laliberte. Mr. Lincoln, first.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I've been trying to find out what is common to your different positions, Mr. Hill, Ms. Eegeesiak and Mr. Lickers. I was wondering if you could address the suggestion, made by Mr. Hill, that there should be a separate part to cover aboriginal issues, which I assume would include the question of equivalents, the question of traditional knowledge, and what criteria would be used to transfer powers. I was wondering if you all feel it is a good idea to summarize the aboriginal issues in one specific part rather than putting them in different parts, where they might be very different from the issues relating to provincial governments, for instance.

Mr. Henry Lickers: We just had a discussion, trying to talk about the precautionary principle as a principle in the beginning. The principle, I think, is the principle of responsibility of first nations people. That's the section that talks about that concept of how we look at the responsibility. But all through the clauses there are certain sections— In our detailed presentation we have detailed areas where, for example, the Canadian government uses the concept of native people, and it's as if “We're going to do this, and with native people”. It's as if the native people have been tacked onto the end of that section or they've been dropped out of that section—the concept of enforcement. It's as if native people can't help to enforce.

So all through the bill there are opportunities, many of which we've tried to put down, where distinct lines could be added that would allow native people then to come forward and take an active role where they have the expertise to be able to do this. Again, as Chief Fontaine said, the development of the capacity to do this also has to be reflected in the bill. You talk in some of the areas about capacity, even within the Canadian government, to respect the roles.

Lastly, where you mention “good science”, many times at that point I always want to put “and traditional knowledge of my people”. It's because in many cases those sciences depend upon the local knowledge of our people to make the science better. So it's how we get those two linked together.

As for a separate part of the bill, we asked for this in references to aboriginal lands, because there you have the specific case where on the aboriginal land there is that jurisdictional power to carry out those types of things. So we've asked that there be a separate section on operations specifically referring to aboriginal lands.

• 1030

But the bill itself has many different areas where, with thoughtful changes, I would say, you could include native people much more as a partner rather than, it seems to us, as a tack-on. I was just trying to think of some cases.

Ms. Siobhan Arnott: I'll give one example. There's what's called a consultation clause that appears throughout the bill, and one example is subclause 47(2), on information gathering. I believe it's worded that the minister “shall offer to consult” with aboriginal people who are representatives of the committee or representatives of aboriginal governments who are sitting on the national advisory committee. We would like to see a separate clause, for example, included there, with specific reference in our case to first nations people or aboriginal people, that commits the minister. The wording we're looking for is the minister “shall consult” with the aboriginal governments or people who are directly impacted by, for example, a code of practice or guideline. I think if we can include such things throughout the bill so it's reflective of all our views, we wouldn't necessarily be looking for an entirely separate section.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Mr. Lincoln, I'd like to comment a little bit with regard to your question about whether or not we need a separate section for aboriginal issues. I'd say no. Inuit have always argued, and we argue now, that we are not stakeholders of anything. We are more than stakeholders; we have rights in the Constitution, we have rights in our land claims agreement with government issues.

Also, I'd like to point out that the government committed in January to a government-to-government relationship with aboriginal peoples and we have yet to see this recognition and this commitment being implemented. I'll just use the harmonization accord that we met about in Inuvik a couple of weeks ago as an example. Aboriginal peoples were not consulted in this harmonization accord, yet the provincial governments wanted us to be part of the consultation in communicating this harmonization accord to our peoples, making it look as if we supported this harmonization accord. But we had no say in what was in it. This was an annex, to be involved in consulting about the harmonization accord.

When governments or institutions don't involve us as governments or as peoples recognized under the Constitution, they are having to backtrack, because we react to your positions. We have no ownership in CEPA right now— well, I guess to some extent we do right now, because we're here. But we'd like to see a more extensive ownership and partnership on a government-to-government basis.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: When you say, Henry, that the U.S. transferred regulatory powers under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act to Akwesasne and Alaska and other peoples, what criteria did they use? What happens to spending, enforcement and so forth? If this kind of provision were in the bill, is there no fear on your part that the federal government could use it as a crutch to get away from CEPA and not do the work itself, as it's trying to do under the harmonization agreement—just pass it on, and then it has less work to do? It can cut back some more. I was wondering if you could comment on this.

Mr. Henry Lickers: One of the things that happen in the United States—and again I talk from working with my colleagues in the United States all the time—is that in the translation of those acts of the responsibilities— For example, with the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, the potable water act, along with those acts comes the funding that is required, which is equivalent to a state government that would receive moneys in order to carry out those types of responsibilities. The responsibility has much broader implications, though, in how the tribe is represented, for example. The tribe cannot be taken off a hearing, for example, on a super fund site. It is one of the authorized agencies that have to be there.

• 1035

What usually happens is that EPA, the tribe, and sometimes the state will actually work together as a group to strengthen the cleanups, to do those things together. That's more or less how they do it. The criteria or guidelines they use in order to give those powers, we'll say, to the first nations community are done on the capacity of the community to be able to carry out those responsibilities.

They have people who would come to Akwesasne, for example, and say, “Do you have the capacity to read the acts and understand them?” Well, a lot of people can do that. We understand what those acts mean, and we show them that we do.

Second, they ask if we have the capability to carry out maybe some of the research work needed in order to understand PCB transport through the system. We have people who can understand that and do that type of work. Or again, we can actually consult the work, the way the EPA does, as long as there is somebody there who can see that scientifically it is being done well and who can understand that it is being done well.

Third, the council itself is responsible for those acts once they are received. For example, within the tribal council system they would enact, within their running and operation, environmental procedures that would be as good as or better than the EPA regulations on potable water, we'll say. As soon as you've done that, then you show that you have the responsibility to carry out those powers.

Within the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, on the Canadian side, our wildlife conservation act, which is a very wide-ranging act, was passed by the community about eight years ago and is enforced in our community to both native and non-native people who may interact with us. It talks about the protection of water, deleterious substances in the river, hunting and game. There are many different parts of that act that we try to do research on and then enforce as well within our community.

Last, on the concept of enforcement within the United States, again the federal government becomes like a —what do you call it? I was going to say “co-defender”. They go together, in other words, in order to try a case or if something has to be enforced. The tribe would then act as a responsible government, with the federal government as its partner, in order to prosecute or enforce.

Again, regulatory levels of cleanup can be changed by the council. If, for example, at Akwesasne we believe that the PCB level of cleanup is not high enough in order to sustain, we have to scientifically show that. By doing so, we can then change those environmental regulations to have a more stringent cleanup within the community.

There is a lot in how we develop capacity and with whom, and how we develop that capacity with our partners. In the United States we've had very good working relationships with the Environmental Protection Agency in order to develop those types of capacities within our community. On the Canadian side I can't say that we've had the same help. What has happened is that we have more or less had to develop that ourselves. We have done that, and it's almost as if we carry it out in spite of the act we have before us today.

I don't know if that answers all of your questions, but I know that in the U.S. a lot of those powers can come. What are the problems? The problems are exactly as you said. Both parties have to be vigilant in that the adequate funding comes and responsibility comes with the responsibility of the act. If you translate those powers to the community without the adequate support of a partner, then you run into troubles. So the biggest problem within the United States environmental division, on the U.S. side, is this continuous battle between the federal government and the tribe over how much funding is required in order to carry out the task that's necessary in order to clean up, for example, super fund sites that we have at Akwesasne, surplus sites, and many other different sites that we have there. There's this continuous back and forth discussion about whether we need $1 million for this or $15,000 for that. But it's much different in Canada.

• 1040

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Hill.

Mr. Dave Hill: I would like to address Mr. Lincoln's questions of awhile ago.

We do need more input into Bill C-32. I didn't even know this was going on until last week. I don't know who the standing committee gets hold of to let us know what's going on, but in my books this room should be filled. All first nations people should have a place in what's going on here.

We have four people here. You've had no consultation with anybody here. Where I come from, we have to know these things. The last minute isn't good for anybody.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Well, we're not predetermined to finish by any particular time. At the moment we don't expect to be finished until towards Thanksgiving. If there are more groups we should hear from to properly deliberate on the bill, then you could let us know via Mr. Knowles, the clerk.

Mr. Dave Hill: Who gets hold of the first nations?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Knowles works for the committee, and it would be his job to get hold of them to see if they want to come to the committee.

But don't feel that today is somehow the one and only opportunity first nations would have to come in front of the committee. I don't speak for the group, but I will anyway. If people need more time or more opportunity to come and address concerns about the bill and suggest amendments, by all means. We can't delay indefinitely, but by the same token, we're not going to hurry the bill or ram it through with the effect of passing poor legislation.

If you'd like to speak to the clerk, who works for the committee—he's our employee—about getting more witnesses in front of the committee, that would be entirely appropriate. I mean that in all sincerity.

Mr. Dave Hill: I think you guys should have an administration number for every first nation in Ontario. It wouldn't take too much to send them a letter to tell them when your next meeting is and what's it's all about. I think there would be more than four people here to address these concerns, because these are big concerns.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): On your point of whether we can write every first nation in the country, I don't know what the capacity of the clerk is or the department—

Mr. Dave Hill: Use a fax.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I'm not anticipating a problem, but if—

Mr. Henry Lickers: I'm going to say it this way. One of the problems we have, even with the presentations we're making today, is that on that side of the table you have a great deal of money to be able to meet together. On this side of the table, in order to be able to bring together the expertise we need to evaluate the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as it was when it was first put forward— It is incredibly difficult for us even to meet. To get my friends from the circumpolar regions and from the south all together so we can even talk about the issue becomes just an enormous uphill battle for us.

I understand the frustration of my chief, because it's one of the things we have to deal with all the time. At Akwesasne, I routinely get a foot and a half to two feet of paper from the federal government asking for evaluation of acts and different policies that will be going through. The first nations community has really been running its own environmental division with very little funding for the last 22 years, and yet these things arrive and, if you don't respond, then they say first nations people aren't interested in that issue. It's not that we're not interested in the issue; it's that we don't have the funding in order to be able to take active part in something that I think is really central to the way we believe.

• 1045

As I said, this is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde bill. On one hand I really want to come forward and say, boy, do we want to put a good effort into making this act something we can be proud of. On the other side, I can't see how we can possibly do that. What you're getting from our people is the best we can do at this moment. We'll continue to work on it and we'll continue to bring forward ideas and situations, but it's going to be piecemeal. It'll be piecemeal and it'll be one thing at a time, because that's the nature of how we have to try to work these things together.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): With our limited intellectual resources, we find one piece at a time—at least speaking personally—often is really the best way to go.

Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I could make a suggestion. Perhaps the committee could write to the minister— Maybe I could table this as a motion for tomorrow—because we can't do it today, we always give 24 hours notice—that we consider writing a letter as a committee suggesting the minister meet on a face-to-face basis with the aboriginal representatives prior to our going to clause-by-clause.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I'll take that as notice.

Mr. John Herron: Take that as notice, and perhaps I will table a motion to that effect tomorrow.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Then we'll hold discussion on the merits of that until tomorrow.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): The clerk, in his own defence, is anxious for me to get on the record that we had scheduled today the Grand Council of the Crees and the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and they had to cancel. So we are generally trying to be as comprehensive as reasonably possible. I think you will find this committee has proved to be fairly aggressive compared to other committees in making amendments to the bill, so I would say stay with us in terms of the process, and we can talk about specific language and things.

I see your hand, Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Ms. Arnott, did you want to jump in?

Ms. Siobhan Arnott: I have two minor points.

First, the AFN would be pleased to provide a comprehensive mailing list of first nations in Canada.

Secondly, in regard to capacity building, I think it needs to be understood that a lot of our organizations, not just first nations communities, lack capacity to bring forth a presentation like this. We often don't have the legal, technical, scientific— We were only able to address one area, and we would still like to get into the scientific part. But I'm limited in my capacity to address that right now and I didn't have the resources or funding to get consultants or other people to come in, and I think that needs to be addressed.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Ms. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to put on the record that not only is this a difficulty for aboriginal groups in this country, but it's a difficulty for some of the environmental and health groups that have come before the committee as well, that they certainly have been able to address only one or two aspects of the bill. I think what I've seen today has been quite comprehensive, a very good list of things that need to be addressed in the bill. Given the limited resources you've had to work with, I think you've done an exceptional job and I want to thank you for the contribution.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): We'll go back to our speakers list. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you.

I just want to give greetings. You're making an important submission to a very crucial piece of legislation.

In my Cree language

[Editor's Note: Member speaks in his native language]

It's our relations—not only human relations, but as small as a cell or a microcosm can be to as huge as the universe. We're all connected. But this land, which we call Turtle Island, is unique from coast to coast. We've had this name for this North American island, this continent. As aboriginal people, there is a connection that nobody can take away from us.

• 1050

When you have acts imposed and acts that decentralize their powers to other bodies—provincial, territorial, or aboriginal—in terms of this issue, how do we protect it? This bill is to protect our environment. It means well, but what is it actually doing?

I think Mr. Hill pointed out a very important clause in terms of the specific statement in relation to other acts that a minister would find appropriate or sufficient economically, politically—it doesn't say “environmentally”, does it? That's what you were trying to point out there. You say a minimum standard, or is it maximum standard? It depends on how you interpret that—minimum or maximum standard.

Subclause 2(2) doesn't say it's for environmental protection. It could mean economic reasons. A minister could see a reason to say go ahead and dump because it's too expensive to lay three more miles of pipe.

As for the traditional knowledge being spotlighted in the bill, it doesn't mention anything about biological diversity. I think it should. Everybody praises us for the preamble of this bill but knocks us down for the actual powers it gives, the actual processes. But even the preamble doesn't mention biological diversity, and if that international clause of traditional knowledge should be recognized, it should be stated in there clearly.

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language]

The translation is so crucial. If people back home don't understand what the bill is, this bill might as well be a blank piece of paper. A language foreign to our people is meaningless, and that's a reverse. So if this government doesn't recognize our languages and our interpretation, our translations, then our knowledge is blank. It's not respected.

All these different effects—from the coastal people, from inland, from freshwater—these impacts are being felt in our stories and the stories of public consultation, public right to know, and the public right to sue. There are issues here of employee protection—whistle-blower protection. Sometimes a person may want to raise a question in our community about what an industry is doing up the river. Let's say Fort Saskatchewan is dumping toxins from the petrochemical company, and somebody in the Saskatchewan River system further down the river in Saskatchewan raises the issue. They have no powers because the harmonization has given the powers to the province of Alberta and somebody from Manitoba or Saskatchewan dare not say anything. The water flows our way, but not the responsibilities.

I have a question in terms of the bill. Do you all feel that federal jurisdiction is crucial here? There is one presentation here that talks about harmonization as being non-consultative as it exists, but what is the position regarding harmonization now? Are you feeling that the accord is in place— and you know that the spirit and intent of the accord is to try to harmonize and fill in gaps? But in some of our experiences, because of the lack of resources—

I should say that the original intent was to sort out the overlap. Industry was concerned that when applying for environment they would have to go through provincial and federal hoops. It was too much, too costly, and it was an inconvenience for them. But we have found there are a lot of gaps because of resources. Provincial resources, federal resources, and your resources are limited to address the environmental concerns. So that is the question: should an act maintain federal jurisdiction?

• 1055

The other question I have is on part 9. It deals with aboriginal lands specifically, but I know in the aboriginal context in reality some of the jurisdictions kind of go into the grey area: the Assembly of First Nations, crown lands being provincial or territorial, the Inuit circumpolar area, the Metis jurisdictions. Aboriginal gets tapered down a bit more here. It's not as complex as the whole island should originally be.

It doesn't matter if a treaty was signed in Saskatchewan and the aboriginal people have accepted their way of life right now. If you're concerned about the seven generations, it's what that corporation is doing down the river or in your lake, in your neighbourhood. If it's out of your jurisdiction, it's still a major concern to your livelihood. And it's transboundary; international issues are a major concern.

I commend ICC for addressing that. I think it's very crucial. We should not lose sight of that.

So the questions are whether we should have a federal jurisdiction, and what do you see in part 9 in terms of addressing specifically the aboriginal focus or the definition.

Mr. Henry Lickers: This is just a personal thing. As I've watched over the periods of time within Akwesasne, it's interesting, because as we come to grips with things like the cross-border things that have happened at Akwesasne, with the Mike Mitchell case and various other cases— When the Canadian government said they would bring the Constitution here from Britain, they said there would be no impact upon us, that everything would be good, that we'd still carry out the duties that would be necessary to be done. But what happened was that final appeal to the crown was taken away from indigenous people and given to the Privy Council.

Now we have the federal government saying that they will harmonize these problems with the provinces. Again we're seeing that shift of responsibility down the tube, and again we're not being consulted on that type of shift. It's worrying, because exactly as you're saying, we're wondering where are we in this concept of harmonization. Where is our voice, and how do we get that voice well heard?

I don't want to say that the federal government has never been a partner of the native people, but I'd like to know the number of cases in Canada in which the federal government stood on the side of native people in a contaminants or resource issue. Most of the time that I've been in court or against one of these, the federal government has usually stood against native people rather than for us.

I looked at this in the federal context, for example, in the United States, where the Bureau of Indian Affairs routinely is in support of native people on resource or pollution issues. They stand on the side and support lawyers and all of the other things necessary to pick up that, whereas it seems to me that whenever I go to court, it's the federal government on the other side. We have to fight not only the industry but the federal government as well.

I'm concerned about this promulgation of powers downward. However, the question was do we need a federal government in this act. The way I put it is it's better the devil I know. I know you; I know how you operate. I really do think that you're required and have a place in this Environmental Protection Act. And we'll continue to work with you to try to strengthen our position in there as well, because it's necessary, I think, for us to be able to do that.

We have a lot of knowledge within our communities about exactly what you need. I can give you example after example of native people who have not been mentioned in the scientific papers that have been produced. On the northern river basins study, for example, there wasn't a study there that wasn't done better because of the knowledge of native people that was input into the study.

Where a consultant goes into the field and tries to collect a fish with a bag that's too small for the fish, the native people can tell you how big the bag should be. That's a very useful thing.

• 1100

So yes, I think the federal government should be involved. I think there is a place for us at that table as well. I want to know how that partnership will run, though. After 22 years of working with the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, I'm glad that you came down and visited us a number of times, but I really want to get into some real work with the shovel in the field and get some things done with my partners.

Referring to part 9, which talks about government operations and federal and aboriginal land, again you're into a situation where the jurisdictions come into conflict. It's as if the federal government, as Mr. Hyde, is going to apply this to first nations communities: “We are going to send the environmental storm troopers into your communities and pick up all of those people who threw a battery out their back door”, instead of “We're going to come to the community, work with you, talk about batteries, why they should be taken care of, and then we'll see what the issue is”.

I'll give you an example: the new subclause we're talking about, on the rights of an inspector to cross into the community. I don't know about many other communities, but if I have some inspector coming down to my community and he doesn't go to the council first to get permission to make sure he's on property, has proper representation, has people to escort him around the community— If he came charging into a Mohawk community, into my backyard, this is my land, and our people are most concerned when we see people on our properties doing things we don't know about.

The better thing would be to modify that and state how you work in partnership with the first nations community to carry out the responsibility. I think that's what we're after. I don't think the federal government wakes up in the morning asking how we are going to destroy the environment. What we are asking is how we can be responsible for it. First nations people know that responsibility and want to work with you. We're for it.

So there are some things in part 9 that I think have to be changed. We have some recommendations in our paper to you that you can read later.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Hill, you wanted to add something.

Mr. Dave Hill: Yes, I have a little bit more to say about that.

When somebody comes down to our Six Nations territory, they have to go to the band council first. On something like this, they would be coming to our management committee, we'd talk to them there, and if they wanted to go through our reserve we'd have somebody from that management committee or somebody from council, and they would have permission. But if they just went down there and tried to do something, they'd be run off so quick it wouldn't be funny.

If we're going to talk about going on somebody's territory, as Henry said, you go to the band first and get authorization or you're going to be in big trouble, and nobody wants that.

If there's environmental stuff, we're just starting out on our reserve now; it's only the second year that we're getting into it. But it is a big topic down there. Like all first nations, I think it will be a big topic, because there are a lot of things happening on first nations that don't happen off first nations territory, like all this illegal dumping. People come to our reserve and dump everything, and they just get away with it.

When you come on somebody's territory, you have to get permission first, or there will be some problems.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): President Eegeesiak.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Thank you.

I think my presentation stressed the need for Canada to take ownership and leadership on environmental issues. The environment is a global issue; it's not a provincial issue. I'm worried that with stuff like the harmonization accord, the environment is going to start to be polluted in Canada. This is why I stressed that Canada has to start taking the ownership and leadership in environmental issues.

Mr. Laliberte, I asked Violet if she knew you, because she's very passionate about traditional knowledge and the Convention on Biological Diversity. With Canada being a signatory to this convention, it's of significance to us because of our traditional knowledge and the fact that we have to be involved. We have yet to be approached on how we're going to be involved in the implementation of the convention.

• 1105

I think Canada has to take the lead in environmental issues. I'd like to address another environment and sustainable development issue, but it's also a wildlife issue and to Inuit it's a cultural issue, a nutritional issue, a physical issue and a psychological issue. I don't know how much background you have on the Marine Mammal Protection Act of the United States and the trade barriers that are imposed on us. You know, this MMPA is coming up for re-authorization early next year, in March, and we'd like your help in lobbying the federal government to take the lead in addressing our concerns.

The MMPA prohibits the export of marine mammal products into the U.S. The legislation is not based on scientific data but on emotional issues. I think you will remember that. Inuit would like to see it amended to reflect new international indigenous species legislation that is based on scientific data, principles, and Inuit traditional knowledge.

We have been lobbying the past little while on trying to get some resources from the federal government to start our own lobbying efforts and our own educating efforts in the United States because of this re-authorization that is coming up. I hope you will agree and support our cause in getting this Marine Mammal Protection Act at least amended. Right now it's the only piece of legislation that recognizes Inuit harvesting rights in the U.S., so we want to keep our Inuit people in the U.S. protected under that legislation. We would just like to see the trade barriers lifted. We're starting to work at ITC to get our cause known in the United States, and I hope Canada takes some leadership on this issue as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I don't have anyone else on my speakers list, so unless someone wants to jump in— Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mrs. Eegeesiak, you mentioned in your report that instead of assessing chemicals one by one we should go on a class-by-class assessment program to speed up the work of CEPA, which people have said has been crawling like a tortoise. Could you comment on it? And maybe the others—like Mr. Lickers, who's got a lot of scientific background and is involved with the IJC—could comment on it too, and Mr. Hill if he wants to.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I was just looking for exactly what I said.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I think you said:

Chemicals should be assessed on a class-by-class basis rather than the current one chemical at a time approach. We are particularly mindful of the potential cumulative and synergistic effect of the soup mix of chemicals that reaches the Arctic.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Can you help me on that, Violet?

Ms. Violet Ford: I think this is something, Okalik, that we will have to take to ITC for our technical people to respond to.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I really think there's something there: that we've been crawling under CEPA assessing substance by substance. I think you've got a good point, that many substances could be classified into— I know there's a reference to groups in CEPA. All the same, the assessments have been very much of an individual screening.

Mr. Henry Lickers: If you look at, for example, just the concepts of PCBs as a compound, but you look at the conjugers that are there and the number of different conjugers that are there—you know, you have 200 and some odd. Dioxins are the same way. Toxaphene is not just one compound; it's a hundred different compounds.

• 1110

The problem here is that in the environment at Akwesasne, for example, and probably in the Arctic as well, you're looking at a mixture of compounds in a really large, substantial way. Our standard way of looking at compounds and how they impact upon people was the use of epidemiology; it was to look at single compounds and how they interact with single target systems. With some of the work done on the Great Lakes, the Jacobson study and various other studies that have been done, we are seeing subtle changes in behaviour, developmental things, reproductive problems, different types of cancers, metabolic changes, all of those types of changes going on where people are taking this mixture in.

The EAGLE project was trying to look at that concept of mixture and how mixture influences, for example, first nations people. There were some very interesting results there. When you look at a broad scan of compounds in people in the northern part—Lake Superior—and compare them to the people who live in the south, you see a very different profile of compounds in the blood of those people. What we're trying to see is if there is a difference then in those people—different medical capabilities, various behaviours—rather than going in and saying PCBs actually caused this lesion on this piece of liver tissue, because we found it really difficult to do that type of work. You require millions and millions of dollars to look at the 120 different compounds that we've been able to find at Akwesasne in fish alone.

So what we're asking is whether we've been able to see a change in the people of Akwesasne over a long period, especially from those who have heavily consumed those mixtures. So that's one way I think we can look at some of these mixtures as a class-by-class issue. We're looking at PCBs now, but there I think maybe we want to be a little more simplistic and look at some of the coplanar PCBs as a toxic compound. As for toxaphene, again we're trying to identify those real nasties in toxaphene as chemicals, and we still have to do that type of work.

But when you're looking at a race of people, such as the Inuit people or the Haudenosaunee people, who are relying upon those compounds, and we start to compare the past history of health of those people to the current history of health and we can see change in them, I think your precautionary principle comes in and says there is something just dreadfully wrong in that environment.

Again, looking at that environment, there are many confounders when you're looking at it from an epidemiological point of view, from lifestyle changes and other things. However, I can tell you that when you look at it this way, you suddenly begin to tease out those factors that can look at some of these very large landscape changes, as you call them, rather than specific individual changes. So you may be saying things like, for instance, there is a concern of dropping sperm counts in the Great Lakes; and I haven't heard anybody yet say it's due to coplanar PCB number 37— whatever. What I've heard them say is, well, there's a vast amount of compounds in the Great Lakes and this may be impacting. That's why we have to strengthen our acts; that's why we have to strengthen our legislation. Again, it's precautionary.

In the Arctic I would see many of those types of things. Studies that are being done up there have to be done intimately with the people there, because again the knowledge of the people will help you define how those compounds will be working within that group.

It's a very difficult task. I've been working on many of these types of studies for years and years. But I think there is some good science coming out that will help us with this issue. It's just how we are able to get more work done with it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Ms. Ford, you wanted to jump in or—

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Thank you very much, Mr. Lickers.

I'll take your question back to my office and get a more comprehensive answer for you, although Mr. Lickers did a fine job of answering. Violet would like to expand on the traditional knowledge issue from the Inuit perspective while I step outside for a minute.

• 1115

Ms. Violet Ford: Thank you for taking an interest on the CBD in relation to CEPA. There has been a Canadian working group set up for the last year and a half on the implementation of article 8(j) of the CBD, dealing with indigenous knowledge and the role of indigenous people in the use of natural resources.

Although the federal government still does not have, or is not developing, a policy on this issue, I would like to encourage the standing committee, when making its recommendations, to keep in mind Canada's international obligations in other international conventions and other instruments, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Climate Change, the POPs protocol, and human rights instruments that Canada is involved in internationally. Also, keep in mind the consistency of this bill with those international obligations.

I've worked in the international area for the last two years, and every year in Geneva, when Canada gives its report to the UN, they always like to see themselves as dealing very properly with aboriginal peoples. Now we ourselves are keeping an eye on what Canada is saying internationally. Whatever they're saying internationally, I'd like them to keep that consistent when they come back home, when they are implementing and drafting domestic legislation that has an impact on aboriginal peoples, because you cannot see this piece of legislation in isolation from other acts and other obligations and agreements.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Bachand, and then I have Mrs. Kraft Sloan still on the list. Mr. Lincoln would like to ask questions, and Mr. Lickers had his hand up as well.

I'm not sure what topic— but eventually MPs will leave because they have other obligations, especially after 11 o'clock. So maybe we could go to Mr. Bachand, and then Ms. Kraft Sloan, if you don't mind.

Mr. Henry Lickers: There is one thing that is not mentioned in the bill as such. When you talk about the concept of mixtures, and you expand the concept of mixtures, you are no longer also looking at the question as a chemical question, which there tends to be a lot of in this bill. What you're then looking at are societal impacts. As far as I know from looking at Health Canada and Environment Canada, there are very few people who look at the concept of a contaminant or a group of contaminants and how they impact societally upon, for example, Inuit people or Haudenosaunee people.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thank you. Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Ford may have answered the question in part already, but I will nevertheless put it to her again, to give her an opportunity to comment. In your report, you raise a very important point from an international standpoint. Pollution knows no borders or customs duties. It is difficult to stop it and often, we must look to international agreements.

You stated the following in your submission:

If national legislation is inadequate, Canada will have no basis for pursuing high standards in international negotiations.

When I travelled to Geneva last year on human rights business, I heard representations from many aboriginal groups who said that there was a dichotomy between the government of Canada's international policy and its domestic policy. In other words, internationally, the Canadian government is seen as being very progressive, whereas people are saying that its domestic policy does not jibe with what it is saying on the international stage.

Do you concur with recommendation 2.3 of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which stipulates that when the Canadian government is party to and signs an international agreement, it must ensure that its national legislation is consistent with any commitments made and therefore take the appropriate corrective action?

• 1120

I'm inclined to think that you do support this recommendation put forward by the Royal Commission, that is to say that when international conventions are signed, national legislation should make provision for ensuring that standards here in Canada are consistent with international commitments.

[English]

Ms. Violet Ford: Yes, I think that's consistent with international law and consistent with other arrangements that the federal government is trying to set up with aboriginal people in Canada as a result of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in regard to partnerships, for example. I also think that not only would they make the necessary amendments to domestic legislation after they come back to Canada from international conferences, but that they also would include aboriginal people on their delegations when they go to the international arena, so that aboriginal people take an equal part in any negotiations Canada takes part in at the international level, and so that we're not only seen as observers at the UN and in other international forums. It's then that we can say we are true partners with the federal government.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Clause 9 deals with agreements respecting administration, and clause 10 deals with agreements respecting equivalent provisions. I'm just wondering what the witnesses might see changed to these clauses, if you have specific wording now or if there's anything you would like to submit, or if you feel there are other areas where the bill has to be changed in order to address your concerns around these two issues.

Ms. Siobhan Arnott: Thank you.

One of the points the Assembly of First Nations brought up is a recognition that many first nation governments already have environmental protection regimes in place, and that if these regulations or measures are either equivalent or more stringent than the provisions contained in CEPA those regimes should supersede the act. We mentioned that there is capacity building too, that if these agreements are to be entered into we would like to see support. As Henry was mentioning, in the U.S. that's in the terms of funding and partnerships.

We had concerns that the equivalency provisions as they're now written are not necessarily that flexible. They seem to address only those aboriginal first nation governments that have already negotiated self-government agreements, and not other first nations. Henry gave an example of Akwesasne, which actually has environmental regimes in place. They could be, and probably are, more stringent than or equivalent to provisions under CEPA. There should be some recognition that that exists and that not all first nations governments will choose to enter into self-government agreements.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Actually, I probably didn't make myself very clear. I was wondering if you had actual legal wording that we could use for the amendments.

Ms. Siobhan Arnott: We would send that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That would be good.

Ms. Siobhan Arnott: We had a detailed clause-by-clause and we could send that.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: The legal wording would be very helpful for the amendment preparation.

I've asked one of the support staff if they would make copies of recommendations from chapter 12 and chapter 13 of the original committee document that came out when we did the review of CEPA, called It's About Our Health! At that time we conducted a fairly extensive set of discussions with native representatives in the south and we did some touring in the north as well—maybe not as comprehensive as we should, but we are limited with our resources as well. What I'm going to do is give you a copy of these recommendations, because it seems that a lot of the discussion we have had this morning— We're not hearing a new story, and neither did the committee put forward much of a different story when they made their original report.

• 1125

So I'll make sure you have copies of these recommendations, and if there are things that you see vastly different from these recommendations or serious omissions, you could let us know as well because it will help us in the amendment-making process. I'll make sure you get copies of that before you leave.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): I have Mr. Jordan for the first time, and then we'll go to Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Not the first time ever, I hope.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): No.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I just want to make a quick comment that sort of underscores a point that Henry made. In terms of engaging first nations people in processes, you talked about capacity building and the fact that you're able to do the science. I think good science is public and repeatable. I think there's a lot more to that.

In terms of my own personal experience in working with Henry, you're bringing approaches to problems and solution strategies to problems that we haven't been able to solve for a very long time. So I think I picked up a little bit of a flavour—and I know it wasn't intentional—that consultation should not be a concession. Consultation is an improvement. That's been my own personal experience and I think that's the point you want to push on that. I really believe that's true.

I just want to thank you for being here today. Come back any time, if the clerk allows it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Thanks for that.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I just want to make a brief comment and ask one question.

First of all, I would like to compliment Mr. Hill for his suggestion on subclause 2(2), where he has suggested that either it should be repealed or there should be an endorsement saying that the other minister's specific laws should be more stringent and subject to the agreement of the responsible minister, which I think would be a big improvement on the clause as it now reads.

I would like to ask one brief question. Do the witnesses feel that the precautionary principle, which is now part of the preamble, should be shifted as an operating clause?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In other words, you don't care where it is as long as it's in the act rather than the preamble.

Witnesses: Yes.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): It's 11.30 a.m. If anybody has anything else they would like to add without— Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's more of an editorial comment. I don't think you discussed biotechnology extensively in your comments at all, but I know that's a very dangerous area of our society and our world now.

I just want to expand on what Mrs. Kraft Sloan said. If you have any submissions after leaving this meeting, please direct them to our clerk so we can all have copies. That may formulate our amendments going into our clause-by-clause. So the door is still open for you or any other contacts or networks that you have out there for any part of this bill. I believe that any written submissions would still be received through Stephen's office.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): Mr. Lickers.

Mr. Henry Lickers: As for the biotechnology section, our problem here is not a lack of information, it's that there's a lot of concern. So what we've put in there is just a placer that says our people are discussing that right now. There is so much concern in this area that it's really difficult to bring it all together into one. It's almost as if we need a separate meeting on this thing, because it goes into the impacts not only of the technology of what you use, whether it be a plant, corn or whatever, but also of human materials or animal materials that might be used.

• 1130

So there's a huge discussion going on within our communities about this. It's just really difficult at this time to come up with a full statement that says here would be the position. We'll probably be presenting more on the biotechnologies quite soon, as we begin to synthesize and analyze the work that we have.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Gar Knutson): If there's nothing else, then, I'll thank our witnesses for coming today. We very much appreciate your comments. We look forward to working with you as we move towards clause-by-clause and put in specific amendments that meet your concerns. I would suggest to you that you advise the minister as well that you have some serious concerns about the bill, both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Indian Affairs.

Again, I want to thank you for coming. I'll call the meeting to a close.