[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, December 4, 1996
.1922 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we are ready to begin. This evening, we will be hearing from one witness, instead of two.
[English]
Our witness tonight is Chief Gordon Peters, the chief for the Ontario region. We welcome you. It's nice to see you again. If you would like to start, we will be glad to listen to you.
Chief Gordon B. Peters (Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and greetings to the committee.
I want to first thank the committee for the opportunity to present some views specific to the impending legislation in regard to the Endangered Species Protection Act.
It is encouraging that the federal government has seen and acknowledged the fact that there needs to be a greater role played in the protection of endangered species within Canada. At the same time, though, we as first nations have some concerns about the way this particular work will be carried out.
Throughout the act, to us, it recognizes very clearly that there's a continuation of the status quo as to who should be responsible for carrying out these acts of protection and who should be deciding who who will be responsible for determining what needs to be protected.
.1925
Sometimes I feel we're caught in a situation where if we don't support the legislation we are seen as the bad guys, for not wanting to support a piece of legislation that tries to protect endangered species. But at the same time, it's important for our communities, because they value first of all their integrity and their understanding of their own jurisdiction within their communities, and also beyond the communities, in the area of the treaties. And there was no recognition of the jurisdiction of our first nations over our lands and over our environment.
I think that in Ontario our treaties cover the majority of the province. There are only three places within the province of Ontario where you will find a situation where there are no treaties - that are still unceded territories that would fall into the area of the comprehensive claim.
One of the things we are very clearly acknowledging in this particular document is that there are attempts being made to distinguish between some comprehensive areas and those particular areas that would fall in the area of comprehensive claims. But it's clear that there is a distinct difference between the north and the south. In the north those avenues are possible if there are mechanisms established to deal with people in their territories in the north. In the south it's much more difficult. The southern part of Ontario is more highly populated, with more development, and it will be a very difficult time for us to talk about what provisions are going to be used regarding environment and wildlife protection.
Endangered species are more commonly found in the areas in the south. I think that within the current legislation there are no options that are put forward - that I'm able to understand, anyways - that deal with the situation in the south, where for the most part in Ontario we have pre-Confederation treaties in place.
It's clear from my perspective that in order for first nations to participate in this particular endeavour, we'll have to compromise in terms of our jurisdiction and our view in order to become partners, enabling us to be involved in the exercise of protecting a species.
For us it's clear that we are not just stakeholders in the process. The constitutional discussions that have gone on over a number of years, the different arrangements that have been made, make it very clear that we are not simply stakeholders. In this legislation that's being put forward, it's our assessment that we're simply being treated as a stakeholder in this process, with no ability to determine on our own how we would, within our jurisdiction, be able to protect those species, and how we would determine what needs to be protected.
But I don't think at this stage that there is a particular model beyond the co-management discussions that are available. Perhaps one thing we we should look at are the counterparts in the United States, with the native American fish and wildlife polices that have been assembled there under much consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the tribes of Indians in the U.S. It's an organization we had particular contact with over a number of years. We've begun to trade information over the last half-dozen years about how to be able to reach some protection and management in our territories.
.1930
We need to have another thing done, and that is another recommendation in this particular part. We need to have some actual discussions on what occurs in relation to the exercise of the treaty. Although our treaties are entrenched under Section 35.(1) of the Constitution, there is very little discussion in relation to the exercise of the treaty.
Most of the discussion that has taken place has been in relation to rights and the treaties. But the treaties also cover huge tracts of land, and there needs to be some discussion on how to reach some mutual agreements on how first nations will fit into this initiative, and how that treaty will be used as the basis of setting out a broader base of involvement. Once some of those issues start to become defined, then we're able to fine-tune the involvement, and the application of the act in relation to first nations.
A number of other areas need to be analysed, as well. If we didn't come here and talk to you about our relationship to the earth, we would be very far away from our historical roots and the understanding in terms of the ceremonies that take place within our communities.
A lot of our people believe right now that you don't understand the relationship until you're actually part of that ongoing relationship. And then, for the longest time, our people were hunters, trappers and fishermen, they picked the medicines, and they understood and knew what the changing realms were all about. It was on the basis of that kind of study over time that people understood what was good, and what needed to be dealt with in terms of the management in those areas.
We have had many philosophies come forward, and we know that none of the elements can operate independently of each other.
One of the things people have tried - I guess what you call the ecosystem approach - is very much highlighted in the biosphere approach taken in the U.S., when there was an attempt to create an environment that could be encased in this biosphere, where people were able to live, all the elements were supposed to be defined and to work together. Both of those attempts at a biosphere ended in failure. The latest one ended about 18 months when it was necessary to pump oxygen into the biosphere. What was really apparent, and what scientists who put together that entire system said, was that they do not know all the complexities of nature in attempting to form the simple view of how to be able to control the earth.
That direct involvement with the earth has been lost over a period of time. I believe this ecosystem approach is only trying to look at the interaction of the species, and how they operate. Our indigenous world-view goes beyond that, and tries to understand that the plants, the animals and the land provide a spiritual, emotional, mental and physical sustenance for those who would seek it, and for those who would participate in it.
.1935
Right now that's one of the things that need to be dealt with. Our traditional knowledge is still there. It's still out there, with a lot of our people still operating off the land. Yet I believe our traditional knowledge is taken as of little value in terms of this proposed legislation.
For the most part, when it comes to the traditional knowledge of our people, most of it is written by non-Indian people, the experts who become the ones who study our culture, the ones who study and talk with our people. But there is very little understanding about what is dealt with in relation to the people who live off the land.
I guess a lot of people have heard from different people, including hunters and trappers of both Indian and non-Indian ancestry. Some time ago they started to talk about the frogs, and the disappearance of the frogs over a period of time. Right now that's one of the things we understand. There has been a disappearance of the frog over a number of years.
There are indicators. Part of traditional knowledge is that the frogs that are out there are no longer old frogs. You don't see a lot of old frogs out there right now. You don't see them in the kinds of numbers that were there before. That's one of the things we have said in the past, and it is something people are only starting to understand.
So we believe there has to be a greater understanding of our traditional knowledge, and what roles that traditional knowledge will have in understanding what we know as a problem in the depletion of the animals, the fish and the plants.
Some studies have been taken because of the Great Lakes. They have touched on some of the areas of the species. Part of the thing the Great Lakes study, called the EAGLE study, did for us is to identify the number of people who were actually still on the land, the people who were still having sustenance off the land, and it identified the impact of the foods and plants still being eaten by the people.
I believe very strongly that part of that has to do with the habitat. That habitat protection is probably the first factor we have to look at. Since our people see a diminishing habitat, they're unable to continue the lifestyle they once knew. We knew our people wouldn't be able to continue to live to the very extent of the lifestyle, but we also knew there should be some continuation of that lifestyle.
But as it stands right now, a lot of that lifestyle has been taken away because of the habitat that has been removed. We see a lot of it right now in the enforcement of provincial regulations that are in place. We know our people are not continuing their process of being out on the land, and being able to be the eyes and ears of the bush out there.
.1940
So what do we end up doing right now? In the studies, like the EAGLE study, we're finding out that most of our people who have that and would continue to practice it.... The only way we see them right now are in the statistics, in terms of the poverty that results because of the inability to locate certain kinds of animals and species.
I believe that by necessity there has to be some discussion about how to utilize the traditional knowledge. This should not be in the way that says to our people, we'll utilize the knowledge, we'll come to you, we'll ask for your advice, and then that knowledge is taken, and there's nothing to replace it.
There needs to be a system where our people can get back on the land, they can still exercise their rights within their treaty area, they can still develop partnerships with the federal government to be able to talk about how to ensure that they are still part of that lifestyle that goes on. I think it's a very important part of understanding the spiritual elements of the land, and it's something the current ecosystems are not able to do.
We find ourselves in a situation in relation to most of the things we have in front of us. We're not trying to find the broadest environmental protection available to us right now.
The provinces will have a large say in terms of the legislation that's required. The Ontario government just recently started the process of removing the environmental protections that were available for the people to utilize in Ontario.
Part of that is also reflected in the need for development in Ontario, for opening up the north where there are provisions for mining companies, for example, where they don't have to clean up the areas after they mine. Those are of particular concern to us as we're going along, because, again, that relates to the habitat and the manner in which we treat the environment.
So as well as talking about this particular endangered species act, there needs to be a real toughening of the environmental laws that are there. There needs to be a deeper understanding of the environment, and the laws that apply there so that we are sufficiently assured that there is protection of the plant, animal and fish life there. Right now we don't have a particular role in that ongoing process. I don't feel that there has been a lot of consultation conducted to find out exactly what role we can play.
I believe that when we dealt with a similar piece of legislation, when the negotiations were going on with the Americans on migratory birds, within our region we undertook to try to develop the ability to do some consultation. That consultation is being addressed as one of the ways of achieving an end result.
I think that with the CWS some of the work we did as a last-minute attempt to try to deal with some of the issues certainly shouldn't be looked at as a model of consultation in these particular areas. It never takes into account some of the areas of traditional knowledge I mentioned. It doesn't take into account our treaties. It doesn't take into account any of the issues involving our jurisdiction. And, for the most part, it doesn't take into account the things we recommend, or the things we put forward as part of the way in which there can be a just way of being able to consult and ensure that we know the ideas and recommendations put forward have any merit whatsoever and will be dealt with in a reasonable fashion.
.1945
So this evening my reflection on this particular legislation is that there still needs to be a role for first nations. I think we still have something to offer in relation to not only the identification of endangered species but also the recovery. In order for us to be an active participant in this process there has to be a recognition of who we are and the responsibilities we carry as the people.
I think for me this evening those are some of the comments I wanted to make. If there are questions in relation to what's being put forward, I'd be more than happy to attempt to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Peters. Those are very fine observations.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin, are you ready to begin? We will then hear from Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Asselin.
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): I wish, first of all, to welcome you to this hearing. I must congratulate you from making known to us the interest of the native communities and groups and for sharing with us the concerns they have concerning Bill C-65 that was reported to the House and that the House should be passing very shortly.
You brought up some of the bill's shortcomings, suggesting that this legislation does not sufficiently take into account the views of native communities. How could the Bill adequately take into account the views of native communities, considering the lack of any native representation on the COSEWIC, the treaties that you have signed these last years, the native laws that go beyond provincial and federal legislation and the agreements that you have signed? Certain specific agreements had been signed between various communities or various regions. I am thinking in particular of the Labrador regions where agreements have been signed by the government of Quebec and the various communities. Nor should we forget to also take into account your traditions, as you so rightly said.
Would you be interested in making claims or even requiring of the Federal government that Native communities be represented on COSEWIC so that they might make their views known, so that their claims might be laid out and that they be assured that whatever concerns they might have will be made known and that there will be a follow-up at the COSEWIC level?
[English]
Chief Peters: I think first of all that part of what needs to be done is that in the first instance there needs to be a greater understanding about what role indigenous people can play in this process. Right now the opportunities for our people to participate in this process have been diminished by the fact that, as you have said, people feel very much the presence of the federal and provincial governments.
While on the one hand the Constitution recognizes our rights and the federal government proclaims it an inherent right policy, federal and provincial governments still continue to control our communities and our territories a great deal. So it becomes very hard for people to participate in a process where they don't feel they have a true voice.
.1950
In order for people to participate fully there would have to be some recognition that if in fact there were a representative who sat on the committee, on COSEWIC, there would have to be some provisions to ensure that whatever aboriginal people put forward and decided on being able to advance, there would be some assurances that wouldn't be overridden in the process.
I believe participation without some kind of ability to exercise consent would mean we would be subject to the perusal of the rest of the committee in terms of what it would decide. As well, I think we would still be subject to the actions that would be taken by a public group to determine what would be happening in our territory.
The provisions would have to be very clear that there would have to be consent in relation to that person about what is actually done within our territories and within our jurisdiction. Then I think people could participate on the basis that they would feel they have some control and some ability to affect the process that's in front of them.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: We foresee that the provisions of Bill C-65, an Act respecting the protection of endangered species, will apply to federal lands. According to native communities, are the territories that belong to native communities under federal jurisdiction? If the territories that belong to native communities are indeed under federal jurisdiction, one might conclude that the provisions of Bill C-65 will apply to your territories but not necessarily to the White man's territories that are normally managed by the provinces. Do you believe that it might be prejudicial to territories where people hunt, fish and trap, prejudicial, in a word, to the customs and traditions of your community, if those lands were to belong to the federal government and the provisions of Bill C-65 applied to your own lands?
[English]
Chief Peters: I think we're already hurt by the application of federal legislation in our community, namely the Indian Act, as one of the vehicles that are applied in our community.
Yes, we consider our communities to be our land. And yes, we also consider our territories to extend beyond our communities within our treaty areas. So for us you would have the application of the federal government within our community and the application of the provincial government outside of our community in areas where we trap and hunt and fish.
To us, right now, again, we would have somebody else other than ourselves determining what would happen within our communities through the federal part of the legislation, and you would have somebody else telling us what would happen to us in our areas outside of our communities where we hunt and fish and trap.
We would be at the whim of COSEWIC, which would determine what species are endangered and how those plans would take effect and be put on the list. It would also determine what would be done in relation to the recovery. If you were in a situation where you didn't have any control over what was happening in your area, I think you would say you were negatively affected by this process. So that's what we say.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: According to your treaties and to your laws, do you have jurisdiction? Do your treaties and your laws take precedence over any federal law in the territories inhabited by native communities? If you have jurisdiction and if your laws and treaties take precedence, will Bill C-65 concerning the protection of endangered species apply to your territories?
.1955
We were told yesterday that the laws and treaties of the native communities go beyond the federal legislation. If that is so, Bill C-65 would be null and void in the territories inhabited by native communities.
[English]
Chief Peters: I don't think at this stage in the current system we're operating in that the laws of the first nations communities supersede federal laws. In the negotiations and discussions that are going on, obviously that's what the whole is about. It's about displacing federal and provincial laws out of our communities so our laws will be paramount within our territories.
At this stage, unless we're talking about some kind of arrangement that particularly describes a certain relationship with the community under the current negotiation mechanisms, I think this particular legislation will apply directly to our communities.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Asselin.
[English]
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you very much, Mr. Peters. Welcome to the committee.
I'm looking at page 5 of the bill. Very clearly in subclause 2(2) it says, under the topic of Aboriginal and treaty rights:
- For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from
any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of
the Constitution Act, 1982.
So can you describe to me where the conflict is? It appears that at the beginning of this legislation, in setting out definitions, it defines that it's not going to abrogate from any existing aboriginal right or treaty right. So can you help me out in that regard?
Chief Peters: I guess it's a matter of interpretation. We have non-derogation clauses in all kinds of legislation lately. People seem to believe it somehow gives some kind of broad protection to first nations communities. But when it says it won't abrogate or derogate from our aboriginal and treaty rights, you have to know first what the aboriginal and treaty rights are that can be abrogated and derogated.
In the current scenario the federal inherent right policy says we don't have any rights. It says our rights don't exist until the federal and provincial governments agree that they do exist. So I think by adding a non-derogation clause to a lot of the legislation that goes on, it doesn't really do a lot in terms of being able to give us the kinds of protection we need in order to be sure our communities can function without any interference in terms of being able to look after the things we need to be able to do.
Mr. Forseth: Again, I see on page 19 of the bill in clause 39, under the topic of Consultation on recovery plans, for example:
The recovery plan must be prepared in consultation with
(a) any wildlife management board that is established under aboriginal land claims legislation and is affected by the plan; and
(b) other persons who the responsible minister considers are directly affected by, or interested in, the plan.
Aboriginal communities are certainly interested in the plan. They can state themselves in paragraph (b) as well as paragraph (a) of that clause. Doesn't that help? Doesn't that do it for you?
Chief Peters: It does if you live in the north. That was one of the things I was trying to point out in my brief earlier today. There is a distinct difference between what happens in the north and what happens in the south.
.2000
If you're part of a comprehensive claim or a co-management agreement, then you have some way of being able to deal with these issues. If you're in the southern part of, I guess not only Ontario, but probably Canada, the circumstances are different. There are no comprehensive claims and there are very few, if any, co-management agreements in the south, because of the population and because of the fact that most of the treaty areas right now are settled.
There are distinct differences in how one might be able to utilize those particular provisions you talk about, but certainly in our case, in the south, it's not applicable.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Forseth. Ms Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you.
Could you tell me a little bit about the Williams Treaty? I know a number of communities in Ontario are involved in the Williams Treaty and are not always clear on the details. Isn't part of the hunting and fishing rights a relationship with the Province of Ontario? Is that correct? How does that work?
Chief Peters: The Williams Treaty was signed in 1923 and was never ratified by the federal government. In the mid-1980s a gentleman was arrested for fishing and he ended up going to court. A couple of court cases ensued out of that, and in the end the court said the area of the Williams Treaty had in fact given up its right to hunting and fishing within the treaty area.
Subsequent to that, harvesting agreements were struck with the Ontario government and went into place. They tried to find some accommodation for those communities that belonged to the Williams Treaty. Very recently the Ontario government repealed those agreements. Right now the communities are left with the understanding that the only place they can hunt or fish is within the community itself.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: How would this legislation work with communities who were, say, under the Williams Treaty? You were talking earlier about the differences between the north and the south, and this is just an example of something we could walk through. I understand the situation up north is a lot different.
Chief Peters: In relation to the Williams Treaty, first and foremost the provincial legislation would apply to all of the territory that is called the Williams Treaty. Beyond that, I would assume the federal legislation would apply on the reserve.
Right now, in the context of Ontario, there would be no ability for those communities to have any role beyond the community itself. They would be restricted to only dealing with any of the issues that may arise within the community.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Any of their participation, then, through identification or recovery plans and implementation, would have only to do with the reserve itself? It wouldn't go beyond any of their original...?
Chief Peters: No, it wouldn't go beyond at all. I think for a while they were talking about adjacent waters, but since the Ontario government has repealed the harvesting arrangements they had, they would have no other role, other than in the community itself.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Do you see how the legislation can be strengthened to give some of these communities more official or more recognized or formalized participation opportunities?
Chief Peters: Notwithstanding the situation with the Williams Treaty right now, there needs to be some broader discussion and acceptance in relation to the treaty areas currently recognized in the Constitution.
.2005
For the most part, very few activities are conducted within that area. People used to be able to be out on crown land that was said to be unoccupied, but in the last half dozen years the provinces have put in place various arrangements, such as crown lands as a developmental tool. They've put in management schemes in lots of the crown land areas, and as a consequence they're now deemed to be occupied.
So if anything is to be done, we have to start sitting down and talking about how people are going to be able to have a role beyond the community and within those treaty areas.
There were a number of attempts to do this back in the 1980s. One of the ones that probably gained the most attention was the attempt to establish what was called the Wendaban Stewardship Authority in the Bear Island-Temagami region, when the lands were being held under the caution. That was an attempt for people, both Indian and non-Indian, to start talking about the management of an area.
It didn't include M and R as part of the objective, because people felt very strongly within the region that a lot of multinationals come in and get a licence, for example, to cut, and in 10 years they cut down everything in the area and they're gone. To have some sustainable development and to deal with a land that will be able to provide people a living for as many generations into the future as we can see, they strongly advocated local control and a very sound sustainable management system.
That was probably one of the premier working relationships between Indians and non-Indians to have a look at how people could actually try to forecast how they could maintain development at a really responsible growth rate and yet maintain an area for wildlife, plants and fish and be able to use it in that manner as well.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You're touching on areas around capacity-building within communities. Sometimes part of capacity-building is just helping people acknowledge that it already exists and helping other people acknowledge what exists in the community, and having other people respect that and be willing to work with that.
This was something the committee really struggled with when we were writing our report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. As we go through a process of self-government and as more communities take more responsibility for their own government and running their own affairs, when you get into the area of environmental protection, how do you ensure that communities have the resources and the capacity they need to undertake some of these kinds of activities?
In the area of traditional ecological knowledge, centuries of knowledge and expertise have been built up within a community, but when the community is in a situation where they have to undertake remediation methods or something like that, which requires extra training and other kinds of techniques and methodologies, where do some of those resources come from?
In terms of your experience in Ontario, how are the first nations communities situated with regard to resources to undertake environmental protection and involvement in recovery plans? What do communities need? What help is required?
.2010
Chief Peters: First of all, I share your analysis that there is in fact a tremendous capacity in the communities to be able to deal with a number of these environmental issues. But at the same time, because that environmental knowledge is not recognized as being scientific, it puts a lot of our people aside and it doesn't recognize their abilities.
The majority of our communities have very few resources that enable them to participate in some kind of resource management and as a consequence to become a manager of the environment. I feel that those communities that do participate do a very good job in terms of that responsibility.
One community that is doing this work right now is in the community of Nawash, which is known also as Cape Croker. For example, they've set their own quotas for the fishery. They have developed their own management scheme. In fact, the Ontario government has wanted to turn over the total commercial fishery in that area to them and another couple of communities in that area. Beyond that, if you don't have any resource revenue development in your community right now and if you don't create your own revenue, it's hard to participate in that management process. We're having to use scientific methods right now in the field.
In the early 1990s we also developed for the first time a large number of scientists who now have the standing and the capability to try to bridge the gap between traditional knowledge and the scientific world. That's some of the real positive stuff that's going on.
If you look toward Akwesasne you see some of the work that's going on with the fishery, the animals and the forestry. In all of those projects they're trying to bridge the gap between science and the basic understanding the people have there.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm very interested in the integration of traditional ecological knowledge and western science. There have been some good examples where elders have come into the universities and have been teaching courses and the students have been moving into the communities. So there has been a flow there.
Last spring we had a televised round table where we were looking at environment, sustainable development, and jobs. A group in Quebec was using traditional ecological knowledge and finding a way to integrate GIS as well.
The Chairman: Chief Peters, if I understand you correctly, you said earlier that habitat protection is the number one factor for legislation of this kind. This committee has been asked on more than one occasion to include in the bill a definition of ``habitat'', because it only has a definition of ``critical habitat''. If it were to include a definition of ``habitat'', would you have any suggestion on how the definition should be worded?
Mr. Forseth: Page 2 of the bill says:
- ``critical habitat'' means habitat that is identified as critical to the survival of a wildlife species
in a status report or a decision under section 24.
- There have been some comments that this definition is not adequate.
Chief Peters: If we were to describe habitat not only as a necessity in terms of the criticalness to the survival, Mr. Chairman, we would have to look at the whole business of the effects right now that are created by pollutants and all of the other things that provide stress to the habitat. This definition can be interpreted as the bare minimum requirement that is necessary to ensure their survival. If we're going to move away from the bare minimum to get to a stage where we recognize there has to be a broader-based ability for species to survive, then there has to be a more comprehensive approach to habitat that will allow areas to be protected from development and pollutants.
All of these things would call for a tougher regime on the environment. Based on that, it would take a considerable amount of political will on the part of governments to ever get to the stage where they get beyond just the critical habitat stage of what this bill proposes.
The Chairman: Flowing from what you just said, if the proposed legislation might work in the north but is not working in the south, as you indicated, what do you think is indicated in the south in order to make it work?
Chief Peters: What's required in the south not only affects our communities but it also affects non-Indian communities. It's partly in the response that I just gave in relation to habitat. There has to be a more comprehensive means of being able to look at all the factors that pertain right now to being able to create a habitat where there can be a continued sustainable development in growth that goes on with all species.
Also in the south there needs to be a very comprehensive look at what can be done. There has to be a massive amount of work done in relation to the recovery in the south if there's going to be any chance of rebuilding the endangered species that are there now.
The Chairman: So the legislation alone might not achieve that. It would require a supportive program. Is that a fair conclusion?
Chief Peters: I think so. There would have to be a comprehensive protective environmental regime in order to be able to accomplish that.
The Chairman: You said earlier that the indigenous support goes beyond the ecosystem approach, and you also elaborated on this and described it. How would you define the native approach as an alternative to the ecosystem approach? You said it has to include traditional knowledge, spiritual values. In search of a short way of describing it, what is the alternative to the ecosystem approach?
Chief Peters: The alternative is also suggested in the discussion we're just having around habitat and the environmental protection regimes. There's a lack of appreciation for the complexity of nature right now, and to me that's evidenced in the example of the biosphere approach of trying to create a situation where you could actually build that world into a sphere people could live in.
.2020
You have to get beyond that thinking to be able to recognize that if you're going to live with your neighbour, you have to give that respect to your neighbour in order to live together in harmony. The same thing has to apply to the plants and the animals and the fish. You have to give them that same respect in order to survive, and we don't give that kind of respect right now.
There is a fundamental belief in science that everything can be fixed or everything can be made to resemble what's there. That's probably the most devastating attitude we can have in relation to trying to correct the current situation we find ourselves in right now in relation to all life on this planet.
The Chairman: I would like to have another round of questions. Madam Kraft Sloan, please.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Perhaps I will engage in more dialogue than questions.
It's interesting that you pointed out the biosphere. My family and I were down there a few years ago and for fun we decided we would go through Biosphere II, just outside of Tucson, Arizona. I asked our tour guide where the source of energy was located. He said it was outside the biosphere. I said you have created a complete world, so why is the energy source outside? It's like plugging the thing into the wall. You haven't been able to do that.
I would just like to follow up on some of the comments the chair has brought up. When I think of the ecosystem approach I don't think of it in purely biological terms. I think of the interaction of a living species. I always view the human as being in nature and nature as being in the human. I have taken for granted that this is part of what the ecosystem approach is.
You have also added a different layer here. It hits on some of the things the eco-theologian, Thomas Berry, talks about, which is respecting the earth community and being thankful for the things the earth community provides to us. He has a section in his book that basically says that unless you're nice to mother nature, she's going to get you back. I think that's part of what is missed in the dialogue when we have different witnesses coming around the table. It seems to me that people forget that they are nature themselves, that they are in nature and nature is in them. So this element of spirituality and respect is very important.
You talked about sustainable development as well. I always think the most important thing in sustainable development is the equity concept. So it's intergenerational, it's intragenerational and it's also interspecies. That is sometimes hard to communicate.
I don't know how you've reacted to some of the things I've said. I welcome your comments.
Also, how do you help other people who see themselves outside of nature and able to manipulate nature? How do you encourage them to understand these things?
Chief Peters: I don't know how you do that.
I agree with the premise you put forward in terms of man being outside of that whole realm of life and what we actually do in relation to the destruction of all of that life out there.
.2025
I'm not a fisherman, but I fish because I have the right to fish in a certain area of the community I come from, and I teach my boys how to fish, just as my father taught me how to fish.
One of the things people will have to start seeing is what we currently see in the water. We catch fish that are deformed. We catch fish with fins on the side. We catch fish with no tails on them. We catch fish that are green.
When people can see for themselves exactly what happens to the animal world and the role they play, that's almost like shock therapy in some ways. People have to see the destruction in a way that hits them.
I was just reading another article in the paper the other day about the frogs that came out of the St. Lawrence River. They took out a number of varieties of frogs, and the amazing thing was that these frogs had all kinds of deformities. They had no legs, and there were all different types of deformities.
Once people start to understand that what we're actually doing with the pollutants and the development that's going on is killing our grandchildren.... We're actually killing our children and our grandchildren. If somehow we could understand what we're doing to the future and know we have a responsibility, maybe that could be done.
I'm very much enthused by the fact that in school systems right now the environment is being taught to young people. For a while it only went to certain grades, but now it goes beyond, and it's carrying through in some places right into the universities. I don't think you change people's view about how we interact with life on this planet unless you teach it.
And you have to love it, because you only protect what you love. Unless you love the earth, unless you love the animals, unless you love all of that creation, then you're not going to protect it. And it's something that has to be taught. You don't suddenly wake up one day and decide you're going to go out there and start protecting everything. The only way we can do those things is by showing people what happens and by teaching the young, because it's a long-term process.
The concern of the environment only started as recently as the 1970s in the U.S., and later here in Canada. It has not been regarded as having any priority until we see the kinds of destruction we're capable of doing, and then we try to fix what has been done.
But for those animals that are extinct, it can't be done. They can't be brought back. For those plants that are extinct, they can't be brought back. And even for our own people who are extinct, they can't be brought back either. That's wilful and malicious treatment that we give each other.
To me, you can only teach how to live together better if you start when they're small and teach them until they understand they have a role there as well.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you.
The Chairman: If I heard you correctly, Chief Peters, one of your concluding observations was that there needs to be a system to allow people to get back on the land. Can you elaborate on that?
Chief Peters: Yes.
Over the years a lot of things have happened that have taken people off the land, not by their own choice, but because of legislation, the price of furs going down, the end of commercial fishing in the north, etc. A whole series of things have happened to people. The reasons are numerous that they haven't been on the land.
.2030
To me, that's one of the challenges we have right now, and I think it's one of the challenges to the social problems we have in our communities, because part of getting people back onto the land is dealing with the social issues in our communities as well. I believe it's really important.
I can tell you, from some things I have seen and heard, that those are very much integral parts of people being able to, again, take some measure of responsibility in their lives. It's an opportunity for people to be in an environment where people work together.
When you're out on the land, you have to work together. You don't have any choices. People have to undertake certain responsibilities in order to be able to survive on the land. But when we come back into this community setting, all those things disappear, because you don't need those responsibilities in order to be able to run the communities right now.
Getting back on the land does two things to us: it helps people to regain their way of life and those values and it helps with the social conditions in our communities. So there's a real need to be able to do that.
I commend the communities in northern Ontario that have established programs to enable people to get back out on the land and provide almost a certain standard of living with that. It's innovative and it's successful in some of the areas, and it needs to be looked at and seen as an integral part of development as we know it in relation to regaining that spirituality and connectedness with the land.
The Chairman: Chief Peters, we thank you. Let us hope Ron Irwin is aware of your views, as he's now preparing some new legislation particularly in relation to the participation of native people in a number of decision-making areas. We hope you have an opportunity to speak to him.
Is that too optimistic?
Chief Peters: I do hope people are listening to the concerns we have and that things can be done to ensure there's a way of strengthening the relationships we do have.
I wanted to put one more comment on the record. It's something I thought about earlier but didn't address. It's part of what's going on right now globally in connection with intellectual property in genetic research that's happening. As you may or may not know, indigenous people are now tabulated as one of the groups throughout the world that this testing has to be done with.
To me, this is still part of the endangered species thing, because in some ways, as a people, we're seen as part of that endangered species group here. We somehow still have certain genetic qualities that can be used by pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession to develop some kind of antidote to diseases that are going on.
I wanted to put that before the committee, because it's not just the plants, the animals and the fish that we're talking about. For us, we're talking about human beings as well, and the extraction of those genetic properties through hair, blood and whatever other samples people can access from our people.
With that, I thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation this evening. As we said earlier, we hope the views we've expressed are taken into consideration.
.2035
The Chairman: Well, we'll certainly make good note of your observations and input. I'm sure all the members of the committee share this view.
We thank you very much, Chief Peters.
This meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 8:30 in Room 705 of the same building where we were this afternoon.
Thank you.