Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Aboriginal Economic Development in
Relation to Northern National Parks

Issue 2 - Evidence (morning sitting)

The Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development in Relation to Northern National Parks met this day at 9:10 a.m. to review the opportunities to expand economic development, including tourism and employment, associated with national parks in Northern Canada, within the parameters of existing comprehensive land claim and associated agreements with aboriginal peoples and in accordance with the principles of the National Parks Act.

Senator Ione Christensen (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will begin our study on northern parks and economic development for First Nations in park areas.

We welcome Mr. Amos as our first presenter. Please proceed.

Mr. Bruce Amos, Director General, National Parks, Parks Canada: Honourable senators, on behalf of Parks Canada, thank you for the invitation to participate in your study. We are pleased to be collaborating with you and your staff.

I have been involved with Parks Canada for almost thirty years now. I have been directly involved in the establishment of most of the new parks in Canada's North.

I am accompanied today by two of our aboriginal employees who are also senior managers at Parks Canada and who have experience working in the North. Steve Langdon is director of our Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat and Rob Prosper is currently the superintendent at Georgian Bay Islands National Park, having recently come from Nahanni. Together we will make a three-part presentation. In addition, Parks Canada staff will have an opportunity to talk to you when you visit Inuvik, Iqaluit, Whitehorse and Haines Junction during your travels.

The Chairman: Will you be there?

Mr. Amos: No, I will not. Our staff on the ground will give you the real story.

The Parks Canada Agency was created by an act of Parliament and started in 1999. It reports to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Sheila Copps. Under the agency act, we are responsible on behalf of all Canadians for stewardship of Canada's national parks, national historic sites and other heritage places, including our system of heritage rivers. In a way, we are the stewards with Canadians of these special places from coast to coast to coast.

We are particularly pleased that you have decided to focus on the economic impact and the opportunities related to national parks in the North. We are proud of the work that we have done in the North in collaboration with aboriginal people, with territorial governments and with local communities. We are looking forward to your deliberations and your recommendations, which certainly will help us and others working in the North to improve the way we do our jobs.

We see our work in the North, in particular with aboriginal people and their communities, as an important contribution to the Government of Canada's Gathering Strength initiative in response to the recent royal commission report. We see ourselves clearly in that context, and we feel that we have a special contribution to make.

The national park story began in 1885 with the establishment of Banff National Park. With the exception of a small part of Wood Buffalo National Park, there were no national parks in Canada's North until the early 1970s. Three areas in the North, including Kluane, were set aside as national park reserves in the early 1970s.

A period of time followed when comprehensive claims of aboriginal people were at the top of the agenda. During that time, a number of those claims were resolved. A successful period of establishing national parks followed. Some of those parks were established in the land claims; some were established flowing from the land claims. We now have ten national parks and national park reserves in Canada's North.

Our sense is that the northern national parks in Canada are the result of a successful collaboration between Parks Canada, aboriginal organizations, local communities and territorial governments. Why have we succeeded in recent years in achieving that degree of collaboration? Those parks would not be there were it not for the agreement of not only the territorial governments but also, in particular, the aboriginal organizations.

There are several reasons why that collaboration has been successful. First, we share the objectives of conservation and community economic development. Second, traditional aboriginal activities will, and do, continue in these new national parks in respect of the rights of the comprehensive claims settlements. Third, we have succeeded in establishing forms of cooperative management with aboriginal people and other representatives by which we manage the parks together.

I should underscore that each of the new national parks in the North is the subject of a specific park establishment agreement that has been negotiated with the territorial governments and the aboriginal organizations. Some of those agreements are embedded in the land claims settlements; others flow from the land claims settlements. We have been breaking new ground together in the North.

I wish to mention briefly the three key aspects of the legislative and policy framework that we operate within. First, the National Parks Act currently has revisions before the Senate in the form of Bill C-27. That act and those revisions reconfirm that the maintenance of ecological integrity is our primary consideration in managing national parks. Second, the contents of the comprehensive land claims agreements and the specific park agreements that had been entered into at the time those parks were established form an important base or underpinning. Of course, land claims agreements are protected under our Constitution, while the park agreements are formal agreements between the government and other parties. The third underpinning is a policy document that provides Parks Canada's guiding principles and operation policies. This document guides the work that we do with partners.

It is important to mention that a report was presented to our minister recently on the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks. This report, and the work of the panel that wrote it, focused primarily on the southern parks, where the threats are most acute. The report highlights the fact that stresses on our national parks occur not only from use inside the parks but also in many cases from forces outside the parks, whether downstream industrial activity, acid rain or climate change. The report, which the minister has strongly embraced, underscores that our first priority in managing the national parks is to protect their ecological integrity so that future generations may also enjoy them. The panel made recommendations that are now being implemented and discussed with partners.

In response to the report, the minister has announced an action plan. She has asked the CEO of Parks Canada, Mr. Tom Lee, to make a public report on our progress in implementing those recommendations; that report will occur in November. We see your study as complementary to that work, with your special focus on northern national parks and the opportunities for related economic development.

Parks Canada has five overall priorities for national parks. The first priority is maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity of our national parks, with a particular emphasis on the southern parks, which are under greater threat. Our second priority will be sustaining quality services for visitors. Third, we will continue to work at extending the national parks system in cooperation with provinces, territories and aboriginal peoples. Fourth, we are giving added emphasis to connecting Canadians with their heritage across the country through our interpretation programs and outreach efforts. Fifth, we will work harder -- and the minister has put an emphasis on this -- at putting our financial house in order.

I should like to elaborate on two of those points briefly. As I mentioned, we have ten national parks in Canada's North. Our goal is and has been to represent each of Canada's major ecosystems, each of the large natural regions in our national parks system. I am focusing here on the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. We have activities in the other areas of the North as well. Five natural regions in the northern territories are not yet represented. In one of those areas we have active negotiations underway with the Inuit for a new national park. In two other areas we have projects under active study. In a fourth area a land withdrawal has been in place for some time, and we will move ahead at the pace at which the local aboriginal community wants us to proceed. Currently, they have other priorities. We have not completed our initial studies for the fifth area. In addition to the national parks and reserves that are in place and operating, there is active work going on in other parts of the country.

Under the heading "putting our financial house in order," I relate now what my minister has already indicated: there are three key areas in which Parks Canada, under the leadership of Minister Copps, is working to try to identify some additional resources for the program. The first area is the maintenance of our existing assets. Across the system we manage approximately $8 billion in assets such as roads and buildings. Like many other government departments, we are struggling to maintain those assets in a way that will make them sustainable for the future.

The second area is the establishment of new national parks. We are also working to establish new national historic sites. Our minister has made it clear that without additional resources we will not be able to put new national parks in place. Over the past few years we have financed some of the new national parks and historic sites from our existing budget, but our minister has made it clear that those days are over. We can no longer move the expenditure from one side of the house to the other.

The third area encompasses funding to respond to the recommendations of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. Our minister has made it clear that she will be seeking those funds.

I will conclude by focusing briefly on the remaining issue, opportunities for economic development. In the land claims settlements and in the park establishment agreements, there are specific provisions related to economic development. I will give you an idea of the nature of the commitments that are being made along with the establishment of the new national parks in the North. I will take as my example the agreement that our minister signed last August for the establishment of new national parks in Nunavut, Sirmilik, Auyuittuq and Quttinirpaaq. That agreement contained a $3-million, one-time grant to the Inuit for the support of community economic development in relation to the national parks, a small scholarship fund for Inuit youth, clauses identifying the first priority for Inuit park business licences and employment, and specific funding for six tourism studies in relation to the six Inuit communities adjacent to those new parks. There is $250,000 for each of six tourism studies, specifically to generate plans to support national parks tourism development. Similar arrangements are now under discussion for the new national park near Wager Bay.

National parks create a range of economic impacts, some of which occur because of spending on projects and staff salaries. Those are not large expenditures because we do not have a big budget, but they are stable and ongoing. Some of the economic impacts occur because visitors come to the national parks and spend money in the local area on facilities and tours. There is a multiplier effect from those expenditures.

It is important to have realistic expectations about the role that Parks Canada can play in economic development and about the economic impact that national parks have. We try not to oversell or overestimate the impacts and the numbers of people, because those numbers are not large. For us to say that we will attract 10,000 people to a place where there will be only 500 serves no one. As part of the process of consultation leading up to a new park, we do economic impact studies with our partners and we try to understand realistically what the impacts might be so that we all know what we are getting into.

I will underscore the importance of Parks Canada working with others in trying to generate economic benefits for national parks. We are not specifically an economic development agency, although we are partners in the business. It is crucial for us to work with aboriginal organizations, territorial governments, other federal departments and local communities to achieve the impact that we want.

When thinking about my presentation, I took the liberty of asking myself if there might be some questions or issues for you to think about. I am not proposing answers to these, but I thought it might be helpful to suggest from experience a few questions you might consider. First, how do we ensure that tourism is a community effort, that each community decides on the desired types and levels of tourism that it wants and is capable of achieving and working with? Second, how do we support product development on the tourism side in terms of training or in terms of assistance with marketing or financial set up? Are there some ways that products can be supported -- at least in the initial stages? Third, how do we attract the right visitors to the right place at the right time? Fourth, how do we ensure that the local communities really benefit from the tourists who come to northern national parks and that there is some positive benefit that is not going to the south or out of the country? Fifth, how do we improve our overall collaboration? I made a point earlier about the need for all the partners to work together. What do we need to do to improve collaboration? Sixth, how do we ensure the long-term environmental, social and economic sustainability of the economic development in relation to our national parks?

If you agree, I will now turn the floor over to Rob Prosper, who will continue with a slide presentation.

The Chairman: Yes, we should hear the full presentation before the question period, because some questions may be answered as we go along.

Mr. Amos: We were asked to bring some slides of northern parks communities. Mr. Prosper will speak to the slides.

Mr. Rob Prosper, Superintendent, Georgian Bay Islands National Park, Parks Canada: I am currently the superintendent of Georgian Bay Islands National Park in Ontario. I recently came off a seven-year stay in the Northwest Territories where I was the superintendent of Nahanni National Park. Over the next 10 minutes, I will give you a sense of the landscapes, the wildlife and the opportunities for visitor use in Canada's northern national parks. I will also talk about managing for ecological integrity and about some of our work to commemorate aboriginal history.

When you travel to the North, you will hear from witnesses in four communities -- Iqaluit, Inuvik, White Horse and Haines Junction. The witnesses will provide information about the eight national parks that are in close proximity to those communities. Those eight northern national parks are the subject of this presentation.

The first national park, Auyuittuq, is located on southern Baffin Island in the eastern Arctic. The two adjacent communities are Pangnirtung, the principal gateway to the park, and Qikiqtarjuaq, formerly Broughton Island. The name "Auyuittuq" means "the land that never melts" in Inuktitut. Auyuittuq is well known for its high mountains, massive ice fields and steep-walled valleys. There is little vegetation, and terrestrial wildlife is sparse.

This is a view of Pangnirtung, the primary gateway to the national park and the location of the park office. The park has clearly been a catalyst for economic development in Pangnirtung, where there is now a print shop, a weave shop, a visitors centre, and so on.

With respect to partnerships and ecological integrity, there is a history of good relations between Parks Canada and the residents of Pangnirtung. With the signing of the Baffin National Parks Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement in 1999, some of these relationships have been formalized, and new opportunities for cooperative activities are emerging.

This is a view of Asiak Pass with Mount Thor in the background. Approximately 500 visitors come to the park every year. As with all northern parks, access can be expensive, and the visitor season is very short. The most popular activities in Auyuittuq are hiking, camping and mountain climbing.

The next park is Quttinirpaaq. It is located on Ellesmere Island, the most northerly lands in Canada. The nearest community is Grise Fiord, but Resolute Bay is the gateway to the park. The name "Quttinirpaaq" means "top of the world" in Inuktitut, and the name is certainly fitting. This national park is arguably the most isolated in Canada. It was established in part to assert Canada's sovereignty in the High Arctic.

Senator Cook: What time of year were these photos taken?

Mr. Prosper: They were probably taken in July.

Quttinirpaaq is the second largest national park in Canada, after Wood Buffalo. This is a land of rugged mountains, huge glaciers and vegetated lowlands and valleys. The park protects hundreds of archaeological sites. These represent thousands of years of human use and occupation. There is also an important historic site at Fort Conger. This site was first occupied in the 1880s by an American expedition as part of a major global study of polar regions. In the early 1900s, Robert Perry wintered here during his attempts to reach the North Pole.

This is a view of Kavavow Kiguktak at work in the park office at Tanquary Fiord. Kavavow is a resident of Grise Fiord, and he worked as a park warden in Quttinirpaaq for many years.

Due to its isolation, remoteness and short visitor season, Quttinirpaaq receives fewer than 100 visitors a year, although this figure can easily double or triple depending on the number of cruise ships. It protects an important northern landscape and its associated plants and wildlife, including the Peary caribou, which is endangered throughout most of its range.

The Chairman: You mentioned cruise ships.

Mr. Prosper: Yes.

The Chairman: Do you get many cruise ships up there?

Mr. Prosper: We get several a year.

Mr. Doug Harvey, Parks Canada: It can be as many as two or three a year. Sometimes Russian icebreakers go up there. It does not happen every year, but there can be two or three per summer. Typically the ship will anchor offshore and the visitors will use helicopters or Zodiacs to come into the park.

The Chairman: Would those be day trips?

Mr. Harvey: Yes.

Mr. Prosper: Sirmilik National Park is located on Bylot Island adjacent to northern Baffin Island. The two nearest communities are Pond Inlet, which is the gateway to the park, and Arctic Bay. "Sirmilik" means "place of glaciers" and was the name chosen for the park by local residents.

Sirmilik is Canada's newest and third largest national park. It is known for its spectacular fiords, massive ice fields and extensive coastal lowlands. Tourists have been coming to the Pond Inlet area for many years to experience the northern landscape and Inuit culture. It is expected that the most popular visitor activities at Sirmilik will be kayaking, backpacking, camping and wildlife viewing. Sirmilik National Park also protects three major seabird colonies, along with important habitat for polar bears, greater snow geese and other birds and wildlife. The combination of marine mammals and cultural resources presents an exciting visitor experience.

Parks Canada is in the process of setting up operations in Pond Inlet. We will be leasing office space in the community right beside the visitor centre. In keeping with our mandate for ecological integrity, Parks Canada will be seeking to develop new ways of working with local Inuit towards our common goals of conservation, education and ecotourism.

Before we move on to the national parks in the western Arctic, I should like to take a minute to talk about another important Parks Canada initiative, namely, commemorating aboriginal history. For some time, Parks Canada has been working with aboriginal peoples throughout the North to enhance the representation of aboriginal history in systems of national historic sites. This photo illustrates the process of collecting oral histories and traditional knowledge from elders in Igloolik. Our goal is to do a better job of commemorating aboriginal history across the North. Examples of cost-sharing agreements for national historic sites that commemorate important aspects of history and culture in Nunavut include Arvia'juaq and Qikiqtaarjuk, adjacent to Arviat, and Fall Caribou Crossing near Baker Lake. In the Northwest Territories, Grizzly Bear Mountain, Scented Grass Hills, and the Deline Fishery were designated as a national historic site in 1999. The recommendation and designation were a result of several years of cooperative research and study between Parks Canada and the Sahtu Dene.

We move now to the western Arctic. Aulavik National Park is located on Banks Island in the western Arctic. The closest communities are Sachs Harbour, which is the only community on Banks Island, and Inuvik, which is the gateway to the park. The name "Aulavik" was chosen by the people of Sachs Harbour. It means "place where people travel" in Inuvialuktun. Aulavik is a landscape of rolling tundra, wide river valleys and desert badlands. The lush river valleys support populations of caribou, muskoxen, wolf and other northern wildlife, and polar bears are common along the coast. Aulavik has been used by humans for thousands of years, and there are dozens of archaeological sites throughout the national park. This is an old food cache. Nonetheless, Aulavik remains one of Canada's most remote and least visited national parks, as access is difficult and expensive and the visitor season is very short.

Aulavik protects some of the most productive muskox habitat in the world, and population levels are now very high. Humans have been hunting muskox in this area for thousands of years. A combination of straightforward travel down the Thomsen River, large numbers of wildlife, and impressive cultural resources provides the visitor with a unique experience.

Ivvavik National Park is located in the northern Yukon. The nearest communities are Aklavik in the Mackenzie Delta and Inuvik, which is the gateway to the park. The name "Ivvavik" refers to the very important role that the park plays as a nursery for wildlife, especially caribou. Ivvavik is characterized by rugged mountains, steep rivers and a broad coastal plain along the shore of the Beaufort Sea. This park receives about 100 visitors each year. The most popular activities in the park are rafting down the Firth River, hiking in the British mountains and visiting cultural sites associated with human history of the area. Ivvavik National Park protects important habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd, which migrates on a seasonal basis between Canada and Alaska. The park was established in 1984 with the support of the Inuvialuit, and it is the first national park in Canada to be established as part of a comprehensive land claims agreement.

With respect to ecological integrity and the long-term health and survival of the Porcupine caribou herd, we are working in cooperation with the U.S. government and with federal, territorial and aboriginal government agencies to improve our ecosystem base management of all wildlife species in the park.

Tuktut Nogait National Park is located near the Arctic coast, east of Inuvik and north of Great Bear Lake. Paulatuk, with a population of 250 people, is the nearest community and the jumping off point for most visitors. It is the gateway to the park and the site of the new park office. "Tuktut Nogait" means "caribou calves" in Inuvialuktun; it was the name chosen for the national park by elders from Paulatuk. The park protects the calving ground of the Bluenose herd of barren land caribou, along with other important natural and cultural features.

Tuktut Nogait is one of Canada's newest national parks. It is known for its rolling tundra, spectacular river canyons and a myriad of tundra ponds and lakes. Wildlife here is seasonally abundant and includes caribou, muskox, wolf and grizzly bear. We expect that the most popular visitor activities will be backpacking and camping, along with wildlife viewing and photography. In addition to the caribou calving grounds, Tuktut Nogait protects high densities of eagles, hawks and falcons along the steep river canyons. The combination of tundra landscape and abundant wildlife offers visitors a unique wilderness experience.

Vuntut National Park is located in northern Yukon, adjacent to Ivvavik National Park. The closest community is Old Crow, to the south, which serves as the gateway to the park. Vuntut is a land of extensive wetlands, known as the Old Crow Flats, and higher elevation mountain foothills in the northern end. The Flats are highly productive and are home to a large population of muskrat, beaver and moose.

The village of Old Crow is located on the banks of the Porcupine River, which is an important year-round transportation corridor for local residents. This national park is relatively new and has had few visitors to date. Darrius Kassi is a resident of Old Crow. He is employed as a park warden and is currently on loan to the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation on a two-year interchange. He is pictured in this slide on patrol near Black Fox Creek.

Vuntut is relatively small but it protects natural and cultural resources that are of national and international significance. These features include important habitat for ducks, geese and waterfowl; cultural resources dating back 30,000 years associated with the Bering land bridge; and important habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd, an international treasure that we share with Alaska. The national park is managed as part of a large protected area where the principle objectives are conservation and cooperative management.

Kluane National Park is located in the southwest Yukon, adjacent to Alaska and British Columbia. Kluane was designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site in 1985. Haines Junction is the gateway to the park and the location of the visitor centre and park office.

Kluane was established in 1972 as a national park reserve pending the settlement of aboriginal land claims, and it is one of Canada's best known national parks due to its spectacular scenery, including massive ice fields, spectacular glaciers and its proximity to the Alaska Highway. The river valleys are highly productive and the park is home to a large number of wildlife. This photograph is a view of the Kluane icefields with Mount Logan in the distance. Mount Logan is the highest peak in Canada, and the icefields are among the largest non-polar icefields in the world. Kluane receives thousands of front-country visitors each year, but it is popular for extended backcountry trips as well. The most popular activities are hiking, camping and rafting the Alsek River; high altitude mountaineering is popular as well.

With respect to ecological integrity, Parks Canada has been and will continue to work with key partners to build partnerships for effective ecosystem-based management in the region.

As you travel to the North to listen to different witnesses, I know you will hear more about some of the issues that I have highlighted in this brief slide show. I hope these images have demonstrated that each of our national parks is part of a special legacy that we hold in trust for our children and for future generations. Our national parks are important national treasures.

Mr. Steve Langdon, Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, Parks Canada: The post of director of the aboriginal affairs secretariat is one I have held for over a year. I also spent a number of years in Fort Simpson as the superintendent of Nahanni National Park, as well as some time as the superintendent of Churchill. My most recent posting was as a superintendent of Gwaii Haanas National Park, where I spent approximately three years. Today I will talk in detail about two topics: cooperative management, and aboriginal tourism and economic development.

Broadly stated, the objective of cooperative management is to ensure involvement of aboriginal people in decision-making processes. Parks Canada recognizes as one of its priorities the need to build and maintain strong relationships with aboriginal people. Cooperative management is one way of doing so. For me, cooperative management has been an evolutionary process in Parks Canada and has grown to be a common practice in parks, both north and south, where there is significant aboriginal interest.

We have a variety of types of agreement, both formal and informal, in terms of working arrangements with aboriginal people. All of the cooperative management arrangements that we currently have involve aboriginal people by way of board representation. Land claims often provide the context or provisions for cooperative management and, as mentioned with the parks, there are different types and structures of cooperative management. Bodies may vary in composition and so on. Parks Canada has also entered into cooperative management arrangements outside of land claims, primarily in the south. Some examples would be Batoche National Historic Site, which is an arrangement with the Métis, and Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, which is a relationship with the council of the Haida Nations for management of that park.

The models of cooperative management vary depending on the local context. As an example, the management board of Kluane National Park is different from the models that we would see in Nunavut. All of the cooperative management arrangements are advisory. They have common elements in that all the boards and structures are advisory to the minister.

Although models differ, there is usually a balance between government and aboriginal representation. Some models can be adapted to include non-aboriginal members. I would point out Wapusk National Park, which has a different type of structure where the Town of Churchill is also involved in the management board. As Mr. Amos mentioned, all the new parks where there is significant aboriginal interest will have cooperative management as part of the management process for those protected areas.

Regarding the northern national parks, as Mr. Prosper has pointed out, there are cooperative management structures in Kluane, Tuktut Nogait, Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq, Sirmilik, Ivvavik and Aulavik national parks. The models, as I have mentioned, differ depending on the nature of the claim or the particular area. As the committee travels the field, superintendents will be able to elaborate on the nature and function of the types of boards they work with.

I should like to talk about aboriginal tourism and economic development. In broad terms, aboriginal tourism can be described as involvement in the full range of services and opportunities created by a park. Activities can be either in or around national parks. Activities should be compatible to the park purpose and objectives, such as ecological integrity, commemorative integrity or heritage presentation.

I shall now turn to an explanation of how aboriginal people are involved at present. As Mr. Amos explained, aboriginal people are participating through direct employment opportunities. Parks Canada is quite active in training and development opportunities for aboriginal people. There is also the opportunity of providing direct services.

Some of the park establishment agreements flowing from the claims offer opportunities for greater involvement in the northern parks. Those agreements provide for greater opportunities for aboriginal people. The number of visitors is relatively small in the North. Thus, the benefits flowing from tourism are also small, but they are sustainable, which is an important consideration. There are also opportunities for youth in evolving initiatives such as ecotourism.

I wish to point out a key initiative that the department is undertaking. There will be a ministerial round table discussion on the subject of aboriginal tourism held on November 14 in Hamilton in conjunction with the Parks Canada round table that Mr. Amos mentioned in relation to the agency. That will be an opportunity for the minister to communicate with aboriginal and tourism stakeholders and to explore opportunities and barriers that exist.

Parks Canada is undertaking a number of specific initiatives to advance economic development of aboriginal tourism. Last winter we held a specific workshop on aboriginal heritage for both staff and partners to learn about some of the opportunities, barriers and successes that we have had in terms of presenting aboriginal themes and messages to Canadians. At present, a tool kit is being prepared that will assist local managers with practical resources. There will be inventories of potential partnerships as well as case studies and practical examples related to things like the first host hospitality training.

In August, the federal and provincial parks ministers convened in Iqaluit. One of the main topics of discussion was aboriginal tourism. They spoke about issues, barriers and success factors -- all elements that will be relevant to your travels in the North.

In general, tourism can be viewed as a lower priority in aboriginal communities, given the number of other issues related to health, social conditions and other conditions with which aboriginal communities contend. It has been my experience that there is often a question in communities about the appropriateness of marketing culture as a product. That is always a discussion at the local community level.

I shall now turn to the subject of community capacity. While opportunities may exist, there is often not the skills base, infrastructure or training available to take advantage of those opportunities. Non-aboriginal people often have the view that aboriginal people are interested only in culturally based initiatives, but we are finding that the communities are interested in the full range of economic opportunities related to visitors, including things like transportation and the provision of those types of services. However, in the North, as in other aboriginal communities, access to and availability of resources are always considerations in being able to take advantage of opportunities that exist.

The success factors that have been identified include building trust in relationships. That is fundamental to moving forward. There is a need for respect for aboriginal priorities and decision-making processes. Partners need to be aware of aboriginal culture, values and local knowledge. Assistance at the local level is often the key to success for park staff providing assistance. Integrating the views of the elder and broader communities promotes success at the grassroots level. It is important to have clear goals and a common vision. Direct involvement by aboriginal partners at the outset is required for success. In terms of community capacity, investment is required to ensure that appropriate skills are developed. In order to sustain opportunities, products must be market-ready before they are promoted.

Senator Watt: I wish to begin with the subject of Tuktut Nogait National Park. The Inuvialuit were involved in some dispute with the Government of Canada after they signed the land claims agreement.

Is there a body that deals with conflict regarding the national parks policy? For example, members of an aboriginal community adjacent to the park might raise questions regarding economic activity required by that community to keep people working. Is there anything built into the policy that can be deal with that conflict? It could be assumed that there is pressure coming from mining activities and activities of that nature. However, someone must find a way to balance the various endeavours, especially if there are concerns coming from the aboriginal communities.

Mr. Amos: Conflicts may occur at a number of levels in the management of national parks. On the one hand, there are fundamental questions concerning whether we want a national park. That is to say, are communities in favour of a national park? Where should the boundaries be? What form of cooperative management should we strike to work together? Those are the big questions. Generally, those questions are answered through a process of consultation and negotiations before a national park is established. Those are serious and long-term decisions, and they are enshrined through the establishment of the park by Parliament. That process of consultation is usually fairly lengthy, because communities in all parts of Canada take that kind of decision quite seriously and they want to ensure that they get it right.

There are provisions in those agreements for resolving disputes about the implementation of the agreement, and there are processes in those agreements whereby, if the parties wish, the specific terms of the agreement can be reviewed in the future. That kind of review does not normally extend to doing away with the national park, because by that time Parliament has spoken and the park has been established. There are review provisions in the agreement and there are general dispute resolution provisions concerning the implementation of agreed-upon items.

Coming down one notch to the questions of management, the processes that are put in place are intended to ensure that, wherever possible, we seek a consensus on the management board that has been established, which always involves representatives of the aboriginal communities and others. We hope that those management boards can work together to resolve disputes that arise in management issues. For example, what are our priorities for spending in the next year? Should certain research projects move ahead as a priority? What should be the long-range management plan?

We have been successful in working on a consensus basis with those management boards. In all my years and in all our management boards, I am not aware of any time when a management boards ever felt it necessary to go straight to the minister to make a recommendation. We have always managed to work things out and come up with recommendations to the minister that are a consensus. Does that help, in part, to answer the question?

Senator Watt: It partially answers it. I am focusing more on implementation after the agreement has been struck by the two parties. Sometimes, due to prolonged negotiation, by the time the agreement is finalized the entry fee no longer exists because economic opportunities may have shifted to other areas or may have become more important. Sometimes there is new leadership, or the community changes its mind about the economic feasibility of one as compared to the other, and we shift to another direction. When that happens, you almost have to legislate either the policy or the land claims settlement itself.

As senators, from time to time we are confronted with parties changing their minds on issues they have agreed to in the past and pressuring us to make changes when we are scrutinizing the legislation or to make submissions on their behalf to the minister. Committee members have been confronted with this issue. That is one of the reasons the minister responsible for parks at the time thought that perhaps there was room for senators to study this more closely to see what could happen. That is why I raise this issue.

Mr. Amos: I think it would be inappropriate for me to go into the specific situation that you raised, which Parliament has addressed.

Senator Watt: My concern is that there is no specific policy to deal with that. I understand that at times the government must refuse to make changes to things that have already been agreed upon. Is there a safety mechanism available to avoid conflicts in the communities and with the authorities?How can we avoid those conflicts?

Mr. Amos: You may wish to ask in the communities whether that concern is widespread.

Senator Watt: It was in one community.

Mr. Amos: I am familiar with that circumstance. In my time at Parks Canada and since Mr. Chrétien made the initial land withdrawals for the three parks in 1972, I am aware of no similar situation occurring in existing or proposed national parks in the North, that is, where the parties have entered into an agreement and one of the parties has, for the reasons you have described, decided that they are no longer comfortable with the arrangement. I believe that it is a relatively rare occurrence, but you may want to test that in your hearings.

From a policy point of view, once an agreement is entered into, the basis upon which it might be revisited is set out in the terms of the agreement. We, as the Government of Canada and its representatives, feel bound to respect the terms of the agreement that have been signed. An agreement will usually contain a provision for making amendments. Any agreement can be amended by the parties, and new park agreements contain clauses that specifically set out how that might be done.

Senator Watt: Is a time frame for that included?

Mr. Amos: There are various forms. Some agreements contain a review mechanism over a regular period of time. Some provide for an automatic review, and some provide for review when agreed to by the parties. The terms reflect the situation that the parties wanted at the time they entered into the agreement. Our obligation is to respect the terms of those agreements. To determine how you can revisit a park agreement, you need to look at the actual terms of the agreement, and we would be pleased to provide information to the committee on that.

Senator Watt: It must be done on a case-by-case basis?

Mr. Amos: Case by case, depending upon the words that have been agreed to.

Senator Cochrane: I remember that when this park was created, some communities wanted to open up the park boundary. However, that was not done; this legislation was passed. Mining exploration was discussed here. In that mining still taking place adjacent to the park?

Mr. Amos: I believe the mining exploration program continues as it was described at the time.

Senator Cochrane:When we passed the bill to establish this park, Parks Canada said that $2 million would be allocated to accelerate development in the park. I understand that that money was allocated last year. Can you tell us specifically how it was spent and how many jobs were created at Tuktut Nogait National Park? How many of those jobs were filled by residents of the community of Paulatuk?

Mr. Amos: That is a detailed question and I will undertake to provide you with the specific information immediately. When you are in Inuvik you will meet with the park staff responsible for implementing that program. They will be pleased to give you all the details on that. Of course, you will hear from community leaders as well. We have worked closely with the Inuvialuit and the people in Paulatuk on the implementation of that specific commitment, deciding together which projects would be priorities using that funding and what timing would be agreeable to meet those objectives. It is my understanding that that cooperation is in place and that the program is advancing. I will provide you with specific information in response to your questions.

Senator Cochrane: Can we have that before we leave on our tour?

Mr. Amos: Yes.

Senator Andreychuk: We have studied aboriginal economic development in relation to national parks in particular. You have talked about economic activity that impinges on the parks and on tourism. How would you define "aboriginal economic development"? That is something we will have to define.

Mr. Langdon: There are opportunities within the national park as well as opportunities in the surrounding communities and areas. Inside the park there is direct employment and training and development which lead to dollars in the community. In many cases the multiplier effect of those dollars into the community provides an economic base for the towns. There are also activities that happen around the park in support of the park's operation, including emerging opportunities related to ecotourism.

Referring back to opportunities related to ecological integrity, we have been told that people should have a better understanding of aboriginal culture as a result of blending ecological integrity with cultural integrity and delivering those messages. There is a good opportunity there for aboriginal people to be involved in delivering those messages themselves.

When people come to these communities, they need to be housed, fed, transported and entertained. Those things all fall under the umbrella of economic opportunities in tourism.

Senator Andreychuk: Regarding activities within the park, you have the same definition for northern parks as for other parks: Any activity should cause the least intrusion possible on the ecological environment. Is that correct?

Mr. Amos: The types of activities permitted within the park are usually established in the park management plan. That is the framework for visitor use in the North. We usually undertake to work with the aboriginal people and local partners in developing a common vision and approach. That is where the framework is laid out regarding the types of acceptable activities.

Senator Andreychuk: I am thinking more of the Banff situation; while the framework is laid out fairly well, there is a question of interpretation. I understand that the minister has the final say in that. Because of the agreements with the aboriginal people, is the approach in the North different than it would be in, say, Banff, where everyone has to make his or her case to the minister and then politics and environmental issues come into it? Is the decision-making structure in the North different or is it similar to that?

Mr. Amos: In fact, it is quite different, partly because the land claims settlements and the park agreements for the establishment of parks in the North often clearly set out the objectives of the parties. Both the Canadian government and our aboriginal partners across the North have quite commonly said that they do not want to repeat the Banff situation in the North. If our aboriginal partners thought that the intensive development of visitor facilities as in Banff would be repeated in the North, we would not have their cooperation for a national park.

Their views and our common views on that are sometimes embedded right in the land claims settlement. The land claim in the case of Ivvavik says that the park will be of a wilderness nature, and we cannot devise a management plan that would change that. That is the first point. There are some clear intentions embedded in the agreements establishing the park, which you will not find for some of the older, southern parks.

Second, the management structure is quite different. The cooperative management boards really do have a powerful influence. Typically, they recommend the management plan, which is the long-term direction that we will follow. Their recommendation is embedded in our agreement and often embedded in the land claims settlement. These are powerful roles for cooperative management bodies directly involving aboriginal people who are the beneficiaries of the land claims. That situation will result in a different management structure, more local involvement and a better alignment of goals.

Senator Andreychuk: Reading between the lines, are you saying that there is less discretion left to the minister after the cooperative bodies come to some conclusion? The minister would have to have some clear reasons to go off that plan, whereas at the moment she is left with a broader discretion in the southern parts.

Mr. Amos: I should be clear. The minister's final authority under the National Parks Act is not fettered by the establishment of the cooperative management boards. That is clearly stated. I use the word "influence," which is probably more accurate. Under the act of Parliament, the minister has the final authority. However, when there is a structure in place through which we can work cooperatively and seek consensus, clearly we are all -- including the minister, I am sure -- keen to use cooperative mechanisms to find consensus decisions that respect the minister's accountabilities under the act. She retains the authority to act if she has to, and that is respecting the act of Parliament. It will work differently.

Senator Watt: Due to the nature of the negotiations, there is a great deal of pressure on both sides. At times you cannot focus on everything that you want to focus on. You could also very easily get sidetracked from where you want to go. On a subject raised by Senator Andreychuk, this might be an opportunity for Parks Canada to see whether there is a uniqueness to the policy that could be established to deal with the North.

Parks Canada is moving massively. It is a good thing to secure the importance of the various regions of the Arctic. You know about the pollution affecting the Arctic. All kinds of transportation are affecting the Arctic and affecting the migration of certain species, whether marine life or animals. If there were a strong recommendation by this committee by way of conducting our business with the community, having community-based consultations, if we could start to emphasize the idea of restricting certain types of motorized equipment, such as snow machines, outboard motors, et cetera, and if we could try to have some of those parks operated solely on the basis of the traditional way of Inuit life by using such things as kayaks, this might be a movement in the right direction.

The Chairman: I assume the management boards are exploring those issues.

Senator Watt: It would have to be more than the management, as management deals more with the day-to-day issues after the policy has been established. I am thinking more of a permanent or long-term solution to the problems we confront -- environmental problems such as global warming. We are losing polar bears left and right. This was my first summer experience of seeing so many polar bears this year. I am from the North and I live in the North. I move myself around the coast. Two men coming from opposite directions counted the number of polar bears they saw in one day. The number was incredible: there were thirty. We had so many polar bears this year.

The snow is melting, the ice is meting, and global warming is having an effect. All those factors must be taken into account. Does the park want to explore that issue or move in that direction? I do not think we can stop global warming, but at least we can put ourselves in a better position to be able to monitor it and provide help.

Senator Cochrane: I wish to ask you about the potential for development within the area that we are talking about. What kinds of developments do aboriginal communities, especially communities nearest the park, want to encourage? What specific proposals are being considered at this time?

Mr. Amos: It is difficult for me to answer that, because the answers vary by park and by community. In your hearings in the North, I assume you will ask that question directly of the communities and of our staff, and I think you will see quite a range of interest for different economic development opportunities.

Primarily, the communities and organizations we are working with are looking to the national parks as an anchor and a partner for certain appropriate types of tourism development. Generally, the interest is related to economic development from tourism. The specific proposals vary widely, partly as a result of the interests of the community and partly as a result of the geography of the area. It is rafting in certain areas but hiking in others.

I would also underscore the fact that in the latest agreement we have agreed to provide funding for tourism development studies for each of the six communities adjacent to the three new national parks. Through those studies, done in partnership with the communities, they will identify the most appropriate, the most sustainable and the most economically viable opportunities for them. We are trying to proceed in a way that generates the types of development and specific proposals not in some kind of ad hoc way but in a concerted way with other parties, based on what will work and what the community wants.

Senator Cochrane: Is there any potential for some of the parks to pursue development in cooperation with the private sector?

Mr. Amos: Yes, although it depends on your definition of "private sector." Many businesses in the North are taking advantage of opportunities in relation to the national parks, and they are quite definitely in the private sector.

Senator Cochrane: Could you be a bit more specific?

Mr. Amos: There are examples in Kluane and Nahanni. We have colleagues from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada here who can describe this in more detail, but you will see a range of small private businesses in the community, some public-private partnerships, and some aboriginal economic development organizations which flow from the land claims agreements and which themselves are strong actors on the economic front. You will see the full range -- airlines, hotels, rafting operations, tour guides.

Senator Cochrane: What about mineral rights with regard to exploration and extraction outside the parks?

The Chairman: Outside the parks?

Senator Cochrane: Yes.

Mr. Amos: At the time national parks are established is when communities and governments make their decision as to what areas they would like to set aside without industrial development. In doing that, they try their best -- and we try our best -- to identify the other economic opportunities, particularly for use of the land, because that affects where the boundaries go. Clearly, communities in the North, like everywhere else, want balanced economic development. They are interested in considering mineral development in areas outside national parks at the same time as they are interested in pursuing tourism and employment opportunities in relation to the national parks.

Our experience is that while communities are interested in economic opportunities from mining or, further south, in forestry, they are strong proponents of protecting the natural environment and doing environmental assessment studies to know the impacts of those proposals before they go ahead.

Senator Cochrane: Is Parks Canada pursuing anything like that?

Mr. Amos: No.

Senator Cochrane: Why not?

Mr. Amos: Parks Canada is not pursuing the exploration or development of mineral resources outside the national parks. It is not part of the mandate that Parliament has given our agency in our legislation. There are other federal and territorial departments that clearly have that mandate, and I understand you will be hearing from some of them as witnesses, but our partnerships for economic development are generally focused on tourism opportunities in direct relation to the lands we are mandated to protect.

Senator Cochrane: The North itself is so remote. Are the various government agencies not communicating on what is best for these regions? Are you and the other agencies not talking together in a united front to develop these areas?

Mr. Amos: Yes, we are talking together. When I said it was not part of our mandate, I did not mean to imply that we are not communicating with others. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the territorial governments, and the aboriginal organizations set up under the land claims have broad responsibilities for economic development. Our role is more specific, but we do definitely work with all those agencies in relation to deriving the benefits from the areas we are directly responsible for managing.

Senator Watt: In your presentation you stated that part of your responsibility is to put the financing in order. I would imagine that would go as far as trying to find some way to bring money into the parks so that they can generate more revenue. Do you view that as part of your mandate?

Mr. Amos: Part of our mandate is to collect revenue from visitor uses of the park. We are talking there about direct revenue, most of which is derived from the southern parks, where we have a large number of visitors and where we charge admission. We try to recover costs for providing campgrounds and for leasing lands. We have actually doubled the amount of revenue that Parks Canada earns from those sources from about $35 million to $70 million in the past few years. Direct revenue generation to Parks Canada is an important part of the financial equation. It does not drive how we do our business, but it is an important piece of the financial picture.

Senator Watt: Which department would have responsibility if one of the Inuit communities adjacent to a park wanted to establish a community by way of a snow house in the winter time? It might be for two months out of the year and become a permanent thing and attract ecotourism. Would that be the responsibility of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or Parks Canada or both?

The Chairman: Is that in or out of the park?

Senator Watt: Either. I would suspect that Parks Canada would be involved.

Mr. Amos: I would expect that we would be involved. It might happen in the park, but quite often that sort of thing would happen closer to a community where more people would be likely to visit it and where there might be some spinoff. That is the kind of thing we could be involved in.

Senator Watt: That is right in the park?

Mr. Amos: It could be in the park or even in the community. If people wanted to work with us, we would do so. I would expect to see partners from the local community and from the territorial government, and there might be assistance from other federal departments, such as HRDC and so on. I hope you will speak with them during your sessions.

Senator Watt: It could apply to the summertime, too.

The Chairman: Could you give us the ratio of parks in the North to parks in each of the provinces? I do not mean historic sites but actual ecological parks.

Mr. Amos: In terms of numbers or area?

The Chairman: Numbers.

Mr. Amos: By province?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Amos: We have 39 national parks and reserves, 10 of which are in the North. Wood Buffalo, which in large measure is in Alberta, is counted in the 10.

The Chairman: One third are in the North?

Mr. Amos: More like a quarter, in terms of numbers. In terms of area the picture is quite different, because the northern parks tend to be larger.

The Chairman: I have heard the criticism that Parks Canada is trying to fill its quota of identifying new parks in areas within Canada. As the North is the only area in which the federal government has lands, it can do that. Therefore, the North is largely becoming a park, as this is not a possibility in other areas. We hear that criticism from developers, miners, loggers and so on. I am sure we will hear it more often as we go along.

Mr. Amos: I should like to speak to that briefly. The basis upon which we identify an area for a possible new park is not driven by where we might have available federal land. In fact, for almost 30 years now it has been driven by a national system plan that breaks the country into 39 vista landscapes. The federal government is trying to represent each of those landscapes. Until the early 1970s the landscapes in the North were not represented in that system, and therefore there has been quite a bit of activity.

We are coming close to having representation of all the areas in the national parks system in the North. At the same time, we are establishing parks in British Columbia and in the Manitoba lowlands. We are actively pursuing a number of other areas based on the system plan for national parks throughout Canada. I might mention Labrador also as an area where we have an active program.

The Chairman: We will hear quite a bit of information on management boards and how they function in the different areas through the agreements with First Nations, in particular harvesting agreements in the North. I am sure it will be an interesting topic for discussion.

It will also be interesting and important to look at economic development possibilities other than tourism and culture, because there are small numbers of tourists and the tourist season is short. Economic development that is more sustainable and not limited to those three or four options is required.

Would you gentlemen be available to come back to us at the end of our travels after we have completed our study?

Mr. Amos: We would be pleased to come back if that is your wish. As well, our chief executive officer, Tom Lee, is looking forward to meeting with you in November.

The Chairman: I am sure we will have a number of questions after we have heard from all of the communities and the different areas.

Mr. Amos: We would be pleased to be represented at that time.

The Chairman: Our next witnesses are from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Gentlemen, thank you for coming here today. We look forward to your presentation.

Mr. Bill Austin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: I wish to thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the role of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in relation to the work of your subcommittee. Today I will report on economic development opportunities associated with the national parks in northern Canada, within the parameters of the existing comprehensive land claim agreement and associated agreements with aboriginal peoples, and in accordance with the principles of the National Park Act. With me to provide further information on these topics are David Baker, Director General, Strategic Policy and Devolution Branch, Northern Affairs Program; and Mark Brooks, Acting Director General, Economic Development Branch.

In the North, a major priority is to settle and implement land claim agreements. Comprehensive land claim agreements are based on the assertion of continuing aboriginal title to lands and resources. Comprehensive land claim settlements are now being negotiated to clarify the rights of aboriginal groups to lands and resources in a manner that will facilitate their economic growth and self-sufficiency. Settlements are intended to ensure that the interests of aboriginal groups in resource management and environmental protection are recognized and that claimant groups share in the benefits of development.

To achieve those objectives, land claim agreements define a wide range of rights and benefits to be exercised and enjoyed by claimant groups. Those rights and benefits usually include full ownership of certain lands in the area covered by the settlement; guaranteed wildlife harvesting rights; guaranteed participation in land, water, wildlife and environmental management throughout the settlement area; financial compensation; resource revenue sharing; specific measures to stimulate economic development; and a role in the management of heritage resources and parks in the settlement area.

Aboriginal people in the North have maintained strong ties to the land; the land provides them with social and cultural underpinnings and a basis for economic activities, such as wildlife harvesting, and opportunities for the utilization of subsurface resources, such as diamonds, oil and gas. Since the Comprehensive Claims Policy was introduced in 1973, after the Supreme Court of Canada Calder decision, the Government of Canada has placed a high priority on the resolution of aboriginal claims based upon aboriginal title to land. While there is no clear definition of aboriginal title, there is a method for resolving the uncertainty that these claims bring: the negotiation of modern treaties.

Comprehensive claims settlements are now being negotiated to clarify the rights of aboriginal groups to lands and resources in a manner that will facilitate economic growth. Settlements are intended to ensure that the interests of aboriginal groups in resource management and environmental protection are recognized and that claimants share in the benefits of development. It is important to note that private property is not on the table during the negotiations. If an aboriginal group wishes to buy private property, that may be done on a "willing buyer and willing seller" basis.

When the terms of the final agreement have been approved by all parties, the agreement is brought into force by federal settlement legislation. The rights that aboriginal groups receive from the federal, provincial or territorial governments are protected by the Constitution and cannot be altered without the consent of the aboriginal group.

The Comprehensive Claims Policy stipulates that land claims may be negotiated with aboriginal groups in areas where claims to aboriginal title have not been addressed by treaty or through other means. However, the government has accepted a limited number of claims for negotiation in areas affected by treaty. The claims of the Dene and the Métis in Treaty 8 and Treaty 11 in the Northwest Territories were accepted for negotiation on the basis that the land provisions of the treaties had not been implemented.

In the Northwest Territories, three claims settlements have been completed to date: the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in 1984, the Gwich'in Agreement in 1992, and the Sahtu Dene and Métis Agreement in 1994. Negotiations are continuing with the Dogrib Dene and Métis. An agreement-in-principle was reached in January 2000 with the Akaitcho Dene First Nations, with the Deh Cho and with the South Slave Métis Tribal Council.

In the Yukon, an umbrella final agreement was reached with the council for Yukon Indians in 1993. Seven Yukon First Nations have signed agreements and self-government agreements: four in 1995 -- Vuntut Gwich'in, Nacho Nyak Dun, Teslin Tlingit, and Champagne and Aishihik; two in 1987 -- Little Salmon/Carmacks and Selkirk; and one in 1998 -- Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in. One more Yukon First Nation, the White River First Nation, has reached the ratification stage. Discussions continue with the remaining First Nations -- Carcross Tagish, Ta'an Kwach'an, Kluane, Kwanlin Dunn, Ross River and Liard.

In the eastern Arctic, one claim has been settled which covers the entire territory of Nunavut. The Nunavut Final Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut settlement area and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada was signed on May 25, 1993, and was brought into force on June 10, 1993. Among many other things, the settlement paved the way for the creation of the new territory of Nunavut on April 1, 1999. Under the 1995 inherent right policy, self-government arrangements may be negotiated with land and resources as part of comprehensive claim arrangements and as such may be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act. This is being done for the Dogrib agreement, which will be the first combined land claim and self-government agreement in the Northwest Territories. Self-government arrangements describe how aboriginal groups can govern their internal affairs and assume greater responsibility and control over the decision making that affects their communities. The self-government arrangements set out in treaties will operate within the Canadian federal system and constitutional framework in harmony with other governments.

The primary purpose of comprehensive claims settlements is to resolve ambiguity with respect to ownership of land, resources and self-government rights, thereby putting in place a framework for social and economic development. There is significant third-party consultation throughout the negotiation process. Consultation addresses the concerns and interests of all parties and fosters positive relationships between aboriginal groups and neighbouring communities. The settlements are as balanced as possible, facilitating positive economic outcomes for all involved. The federal government is committed to finding ways to ensure that all Canadians live harmoniously in healthy, prosperous communities.

There is opportunity through the land claims implementation process for aboriginal beneficiary groups and the federal and territorial governments to negotiate special management areas; implement protected area strategies; negotiate impact and benefit agreements for national parks, territorial parks and conservation areas; and implement aboriginal employment plans. In other words, negotiated land claim agreements in northern Canada provide for the negotiation of benefit agreements or co-management regimes for all new and existing national and territorial parks.

Benefit agreements are negotiated with aboriginal groups and cover all matters connected with the proposed park that could be detrimental to the aboriginal group or that could reasonably confer a benefit to the aboriginal group or aboriginal individuals. Examples include preference training, preferential hiring, scholarships and labour relations.

Benefit agreements have been signed with the Inuit of Nunavut regarding the three national parks on Baffin Island, which provide some $4 million worth of benefits. Other benefit agreements are being negotiated regarding territorial parks in Nunavut and other types of protected areas -- for example, bird sanctuaries and wildlife areas -- with the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada.

The following are three examples of typical measures included in benefit agreements. First, reflecting the objectives of providing aboriginal groups with economic opportunities related to the park, aboriginal people have first priority to apply for and acquire a park business licence, and there is a guarantee that at least 60 per cent of the licences will be for aboriginal people. Second, the Government of Canada is contracting for the development of tourism strategies for aboriginal communities affected by the establishment and operation of the park. Marketing of tourism products complements or contributes to the regional tourism marketing strategies that promote aboriginal-based sustainable tourism. Third, contracting opportunities over $5,000 are being made to aboriginal groups, and letters of intent are being provided to aboriginal firms to obtain commerce financing.

Negotiating benefit agreements is a reflection of Canada's commitment to improve opportunities for aboriginal people by guaranteeing them a right to be involved in the development and management of new or existing protected areas. Aboriginal people have played an important role in the establishment of the new protected areas across the country, particularly in the North. Canada's newest national park, Sirmilik, located at the north end of Baffin Island in Nunavut, was created in 1989 through agreement of the federal government and the Inuit of the eastern Arctic.

Protected areas and parks cannot be established unilaterally by governments. They must always be the product of negotiations between partners and stakeholders to generate the desired understanding and support, although this process is complex and time consuming. Where competing land use interests exist, they must be addressed before a protected area or park can be created. Governments are committed to working with partners and stakeholders as an essential part of the ongoing effort to establish more protected areas and parks.

Governments at all levels need to increase aboriginal employment within their jurisdiction. Employment plans, pre-employment training, and labour market analyses and studies need to be used more effectively to increase aboriginal participation in the public service work force.

Let us now look at the specific role of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in the North. The department provides services to the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut as both a federal department and a quasi-provincial government. As a federal department, it manages the northern federal agenda, working with northerners and other parties to strengthen the governance systems in the territories and to promote northern sustainable development. As a provincial-like administration, the department is responsible for the effective and efficient management of natural resources, land, water, minerals, and so on, and for environmental protection. Devolution of these responsibilities to northern governments remains a high priority of the minister and the department.

In many areas of the North the responsibility of regulating land and water use and of conducting environmental assessments is accomplished through public boards in a co-management regime. As an example, in the Mackenzie Valley, departments and agencies are taking cognizance of approved land use planning in taking measures to plan, evaluate and create new parks. The environmental impact review board ensures that any proposal to create, for example, a new national park is the subject of preliminary screening and, if necessary, an environmental assessment. Each of the boards relies on public consultation in their decision making.

The creation of national parks involves numerous federal government departments, appropriate aboriginal organizations and the appropriate territorial government, with Parks Canada as the responsible authority. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada participates as land manager and in collaborative processes like the Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment, or MERA, process.

MERA was established in 1980 as a mechanism for ensuring an inventory of the non-renewable natural resource potential of areas in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and now Nunavut. MERA ensures that the economic and strategic significance of minerals and energy resource potential is recognized as a factor in the decision making and that ministers are advised on the balance between the values of the land with respect to park establishment criteria and the potential for exploration, development and use of minerals and energy resources in land. Assessments of the energy resource potential of possible park areas are carried out by the Geological Survey of Canada and are public documents.

The department, like other federal institutions, is undertaking its activities under the overarching theme of sustainable development. The Northern Sustainable Development Strategy includes the following objectives: first, the desire to foster healthy natural environments and the intention to collaborate with land claim groups and institutions of public government to develop effective and complementary land use practices; second, the desire to foster northern governments that integrate social, environmental and economic factors into their decision making and the intention to integrate the principles of sustainable development into decisions; and, third, the desire to create a greater degree of economic self-sufficiency and the intention to improve access to our economic development programs and the delivery of those programs.

Specifically, under our aboriginal economic development programs, northern aboriginal people and businesses are eligible for access to assistance through business start-ups and business expansions in order to pursue opportunities in parks and other areas. Economic development assistance is also available to northern aboriginal businesses wishing to examine potential business opportunities such as joint ventures and equity positions in companies. In addition, the Community Economic Development Program provides financial assistance to community economic development officers to enable them to take advantage of business opportunities.

I trust that my presentation has assisted committee members in understanding the role of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in relation to your mandate. We will be pleased to answer questions.

Senator Watt: The Department of Indian Affairs is having relations with Parks Canada in the field of developing economic opportunities. I listened carefully to what you said about what exists today and what the Department of Indian Affairs is doing in relation to parks issues and how you are conducting your business with the aboriginal people.

In the field of economic opportunities, I guess one would have to do an inventory to determine what is there and what are the potential resources in the parks before you conduct a feasibility study to determine whether it is economically viable to move in certain directions. Who normally covers that cost? Would it be a mixture of the private sector and the Department of Indian Affairs if there were an aboriginal person who would obtain funds to do an inventory of the area? The next step after that would be to do the economic viability study. How is that done?

Mr. Marc Brooks, Acting Director General, Economic Development Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Regarding an actual inventory of opportunities available, the department does not cover studies of that nature. Let us say there is an aboriginal entrepreneur who wishes to take advantage of a potential opportunity they may see, perhaps with another partner. Funds are available that would take care of tourism opportunities, as an example. One program we have is called the Resource Partnership Program. Primarily, that will co-fund the cost of studies. It does not cover the full cost, but we do co-fund in partnership. Often we see an entrepreneurial group coming forward to provide some funding, as will some of their partners. We also work in harmony with other federal departments and other levels of government.

Senator Watt: Suppose there is an entrepreneur on the site who wants to do certain things but who is not totally comfortable with the area that he wants to go into because he lacks certain information and the required capital. He would have to spend money and risk funds to do the inventory. Are you telling me that no department now can help an entrepreneur to do the inventory?

Mr. Brooks: From the perspective of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, I would say not; we do not have that. In some of their agreements, Parks Canada may have funding set aside for community studies or things of that nature. We do have the Community Economic Development Program, which funds economic development officers in communities, and part of the funding can be used to undertake that type of study.

Senator Watt: What about Aboriginal Business Canada? Do you have any knowledge of that?

Mr. Brooks: I would prefer to defer. They are more project specific.

Senator Watt: Can we have someone obtain information on that at some point?

Mr. Brooks: We can undertake to do that.

Mr. Austin: The committee may want to call Industry Canada.

Senator Watt: That is normally a stumbling block before any entrepreneur throws in their hat. That has always been a problem.

The Chairman: We will hear from the National Aboriginal Economic Board, and perhaps they can help us with that. That is later on in October.

Senator Watt: May I also make the point that that may require some coordination between the two departments or agencies, whatever you call them, and your department.

Mr. Brooks: We do work closely with Aboriginal Business Canada, primarily to ensure that there are no gaps in our respective programming, especially in terms of business development.

Senator Cochrane: On page 14 of your brief you indicate that the economic and strategic significance of mineral and energy resource potential is recognized as a factor in the decision making and that ministers are advised on the balance between the values of land and so on. Are the aboriginal peoples involved in advising the minister with respect to park establishment, exploration and development? Are people from the North involved here?

Mr. David Baker, Director General, Strategic Policy and Devolution Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Yes, they are involved. We are talking here about a decision before a park is established, before our minister moves forward with an interim land withdrawal. As part of that process, the Geological Survey of Canada undertakes their energy and mineral assessment. That information is public. Parks Canada is also doing its work on the ecological and cultural values associated with the park. That information is then taken to communities through our regional offices, and in consultation the communities help decide whether establishing the park would be a good thing, essentially, for the local community.

It is our policy that our minister will not move forward with an interim withdrawal order until both the affected aboriginal organization, where appropriate, and the territorial government are supportive of a decision to proceed with the park. Of course, in that process we are talking not just about the park itself but also about the delineation of the boundaries of the park -- essentially determining what is in the park and will therefore eventually be withdrawn from mineral and energy development and what is outside the park.

Senator Cochrane: What happens if there is a conflict over the desirable use of an area of land?

Mr. Baker: Essentially, it is for ministers, in consultation with the territorial government and with the affected communities, to decide how to reconcile that conflict. It is essentially a very tough decision that we face all the time in terms of competing interests for lands. Ultimately, there must be an agreement with the community that creating the park, as opposed to other potential uses, is in the best interests of the community. The role of the MERA process here is to provide the communities with as much information as possible about essentially foregone potential opportunities on the mineral and energy side as that decision-making process is under way.

Senator Cochrane: What does your assessment indicate for profitable energy or mineral development if Parks Canada or another agency identifies the area as desirable park land?

Mr. Baker: As I was saying, it is really a question of looking at the competing possibilities and coming to a decision, with the involvement of the local community and the territorial government, as to the optimal use of the land. There may well be winners and losers in this process. As you are well aware, once we create a park, we withdraw that land from the normal developmental processes for non-renewable resources.

Senator Cochrane: Is your main emphasis on economic development? As you know, people from the North reside in an area where development is difficult. Where do you fit in, with regard to other agencies, in trying to promote the economic development of this area?

Mr. Austin: Our first area of concern is trying to develop a stable economic environment for development. In that regard, we have put a very high priority on land claims, trying to obtain a greater certainty and a better framework for social and economic development. Once those land claims have been completed -- and they are quite lengthy documents -- there are any number of different obligations, but they establish the rules for making progress on both social and economic fronts. Once that is completed, or sometimes at the same time, we try to find the right balance between economic development and social aspirations of the communities and the country. In finding that balance we address various dynamics and have consultation to try to find the best way to move forward with frequently competing priorities or interests.

Senator Watt: I believe our present witnesses were here when the representatives from Parks Canada made their presentation. Those witnesses indicated that some of those northern parks receive very few visits, if any. I would imagine that those parks cost a significant amount of money to administer and maintain when very little revenue is being generated.

Does Indian and Northern Affairs Canada have any role to play in terms of better access to those parks? One of the factors relating to the infrequency of visits is the high cost of transportation. Does your department have any role to play in regard to that situation? Going home from Montreal, it costs nearly $2,000 now to fly one way. Imagine going up to the High Arctic; one would have to pay $5,000 to go one way. It is pretty wild. I wonder if you could address that.

Mr. Baker: There are certain types of infrastructure that we are supporting or can support in specific communities through some of our aboriginal economic development activity. There is also the Infrastructure Canada Program, which the government announced recently; Treasury Board has the lead there. That program will provide admittedly small amounts of money to each territory for territorial governments and aboriginal organizations to work together to build specific infrastructure projects. Those are basically focused on green infrastructure. I presume that that is not really what you have in mind.

It is certainly the case that our minister has the mandate on behalf of the federal government for the promotion of economic development for northerners. Unfortunately, the last of the economic development agreements expired in 1996 as a result of budgetary pressures. Since that time, those agreements have not been renewed. Consequently, the capacity of our department and our minister to respond to legitimate infrastructure needs in the North has been severely diminished, virtually eliminated. In other words, whereas in the past we used to have funding available to utilize with other government departments for activities in specific areas, whether in non-renewable resource development or in tourism or whatever, we do not have those resources at present. Therefore, it is difficult to respond in any significant fashion to requests from territorial governments, aboriginal organizations or specific communities to support or assist infrastructural development.

That is a long-winded way of saying that we have the mandate, but we do not have the resources to participate in any meaningful way. Our minister continues to indicate to northerners that he will be working with his colleagues to try to identify sources of funding for those purposes, but at present no funds are available.

Mr. Brooks: If I could add to Mr. Baker's response, every time I travel up to the North, I know what an expense it is for the Canadian taxpayer. This is probably a chicken and egg scenario. We are hoping that as we see increased interest in the North, market forces will prevail, and with more competition costs will start to decrease slightly. You will not see our department become involved in any form of subsidization to promote market-driven opportunities.

We are involved in helping to prepare the economic infrastructure investment table. We try to ensure that the conditions are there. That could include providing access to opportunities. If a road is required to access a potential ecotourism facility, we do have programs for assisting such projects. Trying to get the population from southern Canada or anywhere else in the world to the North on a cost-reduced basis is not a role our department would undertake.

Senator Watt: Gas and fuel prices continue to escalate, not only in southern Canada but also very much in the North. It is getting to the point where people are unable to purchase that product.

I know that subsidy programs can apply to isolated communities. This question may not be directly related to the parks. Are you able to provide me with information on that? For example, let us look at the north shore of Quebec. They enjoy certain types of subsidies because they are isolated communities. Apparently northern communities do not have the same transportation subsidies. Why is that?

Mr. Baker: We can look into that. I am not aware of that discrepancy.

Senator Watt: I heard through the grapevine that subsidies apply. Someone came to me the other day and told me that people in the North are not being subsidized for transportation, while fuel prices continue to increase.

Mr. Austin: We certainly will look into that. That subsidy may not be provided through our department. It may be through other ministries or through the province.

Mr. Baker: Our department is involved in one area of subsidization. I am sure you are aware of our food mail program.

Senator Watt: I am aware of that one, yes.

The Chairman: Have you any written material you could provide to the committee on your economic and community development programs as they would apply to the parks and this particular study?

Mr. Austin: Those programs may be more generic, but we will certainly look into that.

The Chairman: We are not interested in those that do not have direct application. We are interested only in those that have direct application to park development.

Senator Watt: We know that various programs exist. Often when aboriginal people are trying to navigate through those programs they find that everyone passes the buck. Have you any suggestions for confronting that problem?

Mr. Baker: We always refer people to our regional offices for help in solving their problems.

Senator Watt: That is exactly the problem.

Mr. Austin: More seriously, the federal government has launched a program called Government Online in Canada. It has set a very aggressive agenda to try to serve its citizens more effectively through integration and through the use of technology so that people in remote areas can access programming in a more integrated and comprehensive fashion. That is a challenge for all governments.

Mr. Baker: I was not meaning to be facetious when I said that we refer people to the regional office. Be it community economic development officers or people working in the territories, our people are all expected to help guide applicants through the maze of our programming and to put them in touch with other government departments and their programming.

It would be helpful for us if, as you are talking to people in the communities, you ask them their opinions on the quality of service they are getting at the regional and community levels in terms of our programming, access to it, and whether it meets their needs.

Senator Watt: So it is more of a coordination problem.

Mr. Austin: Yes, it is. I would just add that each land claim that has been enacted obviously is public information, and usually annual reports are tabled, as honourable senators know. Those reports highlight the activity of the various boards and the progress being made on a number of different fronts. As you go into different communities, you may want to look at those annual reports, many of which go back several years. There are often five-year reviews done to try to improve on the progress.

Senator Watt: I have not witnessed a minister tabling such reports in the House of Commons. Where are they to be found?

Mr. Austin: I would be pleased to provide you with copies. Also, we will get back to you with information on subsidies, transportation, and economic community development programming as it relates to parks.

The Chairman: I wish to thank the witnesses for their appearance this morning..

We are pleased to welcome Mr. Kevin McNamee as our next witness.

Mr. Kevin McNamee, Director of Wildlife Campaigns, Canadian Nature Federation: Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on this important topic. By way of background, for the last 18 years I have been working on issues related to the establishment and management of national parks and protected areas. I also served as a consultant to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources when it was doing its report on protected places.

The Canadian Nature Federation is a conservation group with 40,000 members throughout all provinces and territories of Canada. We hold our annual meetings across Canada; the last one was in Newfoundland.

We have been supportive of the agreement to create Sirmilik National Park. We were supportive of the 1993 Nunavut land claims settlement and Article 8, which dealt with park establishment. We try to travel to communities to get involved in the park establishment process. Recently we have been to Repulse Bay and Resolute, where two proposed national parks are being considered for the North.

I want to make a number of suggestions with respect to your report. I would hope that at the beginning you would acknowledge that almost half of Canada's national parks system exists directly because of the support of aboriginal people. Our system is 250,000 square kilometres. More than half of that exists as national parks because of the support of aboriginal people. In some cases national parks are embedded in aboriginal land claims.

In this country we have gone from a history of expulsion and removal of aboriginal people in southern Canada in order to create national parks to the point where we do not now create national parks unless there is the support of aboriginal peoples. It is important to acknowledge that evolution in our history.

Regarding economic development, I hope you acknowledge that national parks are more than places for people to visit. They are part of a network that all countries are establishing around the globe to protect representative natural areas. They are places to protect wildlife. Indeed, some people in the Yukon do not want people -- even scientists -- to go into the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd because of the impact visitors may have. These parks are important areas for wildlife. Indeed, the Nunavut land claim agreement acknowledges that national parks should primarily protect wilderness. It is embedded in their land claim agreement.

Parks are important benchmarks against which we measure the impact of other factors, such as acid rain and climate change. Our northern national parks can play a very important role that could help generate some economic advantages in terms of studying, both on the traditional knowledge side and on the scientific knowledge side, having people to measure the impact of climate change. Of course, they are important places for learning.

For the record, I want to make it very clear that the Canadian Nature Federation supports the right of aboriginal people to hunt, trap, fish and maintain other traditional activities in northern national parks. We are not saying, "Do not kill wildlife at any cost." These parks are very important to maintaining that ability.

Second, we support the use of land claims to establish national parks, to set the rules for the establishment of further ones, and we support the growing use of impact and benefit agreements. We do not view national parks as a way to lock up the land and not let anybody visit it. These parks are important places for people to visit and learn, with appropriate activities under appropriate conditions.

I have five observations and recommendations to suggest to the committee. First, on the issue of funding, as you may already have learned, Parks Canada typically funds the community consultation process, the new park agreements and the implementation. The problem is that, despite having a decade of political commitments -- and it is in two Liberal red books -- there is no predictable source of funding for Parks Canada to complete the national parks system. The last three park establishment agreements, including Sirmilik, were funded by taking money from existing national parks. To fund Sirmilik, money may have been taken from Kejimkujik or Gros Morne or somewhere else, because there is no new money.

There is no funding for the upcoming agreement to establish Wager Bay. This park has been on the books for 20 years. It has taken the local people a long time to decide they want to negotiate it. How will it look when we get to the finish line, negotiate it, and find there is no new funding for that park?

Under current resources, Parks Canada has very little financing to hire people. In order to operate some of the new national parks, and to train and employ aboriginal people, which is part of the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements for these parks, we must have some funding. Our recommendation would be for this committee to support funding in the 2001 federal budget for the planning, negotiating, establishing, managing and operating of new and existing parks.

We made submissions to the Minister of Finance. I would be happy to share a copy of them with you. We put together some estimates regarding cost. So has the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. I would urge you to put out an interim report because of the urgency to input to the federal budget. Talk to the Minister of Finance or call the Prime Minister's Office. This is a blatant request for political support for new financing, but this year is critical for Parks Canada for the very issue that you are looking at.

You may also want to encourage the Minister of Canadian Heritage to seek funding to implement the agreement for Wager Bay as a priority.

My second issue concerns the funding for cultural and biological studies. In the negotiation of new national parks, one of the largest items funded is mineral assessments. In the case of Wager Bay, almost $1 million of federal money was devoted to doing a mineral assessment, which in essence aids and subsidizes the mining industry, as this assessment looks for something for them; but there was virtually nothing for cultural and biological studies. Some oral history work was done in the park, and Parks Canada had to work hard to find the money for that.

Because it is a policy to do mineral assessments, the money is available. It is not a direct policy to do cultural and biological studies in advance of park establishment. Our second recommendation would be that the federal budget bring some balance to the research issue.

Third, you have already touched on this but I should like to throw out another idea: funding for community development initiatives. It is important that the committee not portray Parks Canada as a resource development agency. It has a role in assisting in that area, but it is not a resource development agency, nor is it a source of all the capital that needs to be found to allow communities to benefit.

I would suggest other federal departments. You have already heard from one, but another is HRDC. Their community initiatives grants should be looked at as a source of funds to help communities benefit further from national parks. I know it is not popular politically to talk about HRDC these days. However, many people across this country do know how these things assist local communities and local people to take advantage of opportunities when there is not private sector capital.

Money could be put into regional tourism strategies. The Sirmilik agreement provides for a regional tourism strategy. The 1988 agreement for Grasslands National Park contains a similar provision. Twelve years later that strategy still has not been implemented, in part because of a lack of funding. Parks Canada can allocate its funds to only so many places, but other departments can play a role. I suggest you ask HRDC to testify, because they have a rural initiatives program that could be important.

Let me put a personal spin on this. South of 60, my wife and son and I went to visit a small community that marketed itself in part as a place you would visit and experience an aboriginal culture. What struck me was that the transportation, the accommodation, the trips and the restaurants were virtually all owned by, I believe, a Toronto-based company.

If aboriginal people are to benefit from these national parks and if their communities are positioned as gateways to these wild experiences, they have to be more than just employees of someone else's set-up. It is urgent to look at that, because Nunavut is getting a profile all over the globe. Who will move in with capital? It is important and consistent with our idea that people should visit the parks. We do not believe all the development should be in the parks. The communities should be the entities that benefit. If the lodge is just in a park and not in a community, it will be visited only one month a year -- you know what the weather is like -- but more and more people are travelling to the communities in the shoulder seasons. It is important for those communities to become gateways and to access capital; otherwise we are into the same old story of people in the south owning the businesses and the aboriginal people only getting a few jobs.

Another thing you might consider is having one of the national parks nominated as a world heritage site under the United Nations World Heritage Convention. Yellowstone National Park, the pyramids and the Great Barrier Reef are all world heritage sites. That puts those places on the map. There is no world heritage site in the Arctic. Having a world heritage site in Canada's Arctic would not give the United Nations any right to tell us what to do. In essence, it is simply a stamp, a symbol that this is a great place.

We should also consider how to get governments and aboriginal people to tell the story of how they are cooperating to produce these new parks. When you turn on the news, you hear about Burnt Church and every other issue our culture and the aboriginal culture are divided on, but we have some tremendous success stories in both southern and northern Canada, where aboriginal people and the federal government are working together, cooperating, to protect these places. Everyone is asking how we can we cooperate and what we can do, and here are some solid examples of where great things have been done. You should urge people to tell these stories, because we do not hear them. A park is established, a press release is put out, and that is it. These are stories that should be told.

Finally, on a very specific issue, I would suggest that the committee -- perhaps in a letter -- call on President Clinton in the short term to set aside the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refugee as a national monument before he leaves office. This is a national park issue for Canada. It is a co-management issue between Canadian aboriginal people and the federal government.

The coastal plain is right next door to the Yukon and Alaska. The Porcupine caribou herd, which the Inuvialuit and people in Old Crow wanted to protect by establishing a national park, moves across the Yukon-Alaska border. The calving grounds are on both the Yukon and the Alaska sides. At the urging of the Inuvialuit and the Vuntut, we have set up two national parks to protect our half of these calving grounds, this nursery. The Americans are considering opening up their half to oil drilling. Thirty years of study have confirmed that, if they do, it will decimate the herd and the aboriginal culture and economy. When aboriginal people depend on caribou, it is part of their economy, even if it does not fit our idea of what an economy is.

That area needs to be protected, and I think that, because you are dealing with aboriginal affairs, a message from this committee to President Clinton would carry some weight. It is an issue that aboriginal people have been fighting a long time, and I suggest that it falls within your mandate.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. If I can help in any other way, with other documents or examples, I would be pleased to do so.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for that constructive presentation.

Senator Watt: You have raised many important points which we need to build on so that we are not just spinning our wheels without any effect.We should try to make the wheels spin a little better for the benefit of the people living in those isolated regions.

I certainly agree with you that the economic activities connected to the parks do not have to be in the parks themselves. They could be adjacent to the parks, in the communities. That would create further economic spinoffs and would enlarge the activities in the communities, because they could be used seasonally for certain other activities.

As I mentioned to the previous witnesses, there is the problem of the unavailability of funds to do the inventory. That is very important. If you do not have access to capital to do the inventory, nothing will happen.

I would ask you to elaborate on the use of parks for increased monitoring of what is happening in the Arctic. We have all heard that global warming is becoming more noticeable in the North right now because of the behaviour of the climate. I personally witnessed very warm weather this summer, which I have never witnessed before. It was warmer even than Montreal and Ottawa. It was very uncomfortable. The people, the animals and the vegetation are all being affected. You mentioned establishing some sort of a monitoring system. I see it more as a conductor, conducting what is happening up there. I do not think we can actually affect what is already in motion now, because it is almost too late. Many people have been saying that for quite some time, but it seems no one listens. Could you elaborate further on what specific things you would like to see in connection with the parks for monitoring what is happening up there?

Mr. McNamee: I would not necessarily call this my idea. Parks Canada, universities across Canada and in some cases local aboriginal communities are involved in monitoring. Members of our own organization who have an interest in birds are out there on a volunteer basis monitoring specific indicators in nature -- be it birds, the forest, water quality, whatever -- to see if more of the things that we deposit in the air and water are showing up.

Science tends to suggest that we are treating northern Canada almost as if it were a sewer. Sometimes we do not even realize that is happening. Many of the contaminants are moving north because of weather patterns. It is really important that we have an understanding of how those things affect everything from tiny organisms like lichen, which is the basic food of caribou, right up to those big creatures such as polar bears, which are being affected by PCB contaminants.

The basic idea would be to provide money for opportunities for long-term research programs and monitoring programs that could involve students from some of the emerging universities in the North. The important thing is to get aboriginal people involved in those kinds of learning experiences and programs. Of course, in the North that is very costly; nevertheless, I think it is something that needs to be examined.

The report of the minister's Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks, which came out in March 2000, has a whole section on monitoring, what needs to be done and what needs to be examined. You may want to study that report for some direction.

Senator Watt: Can you tell us which department should be directly involved in this monitoring? Should it be Health Canada, Environment Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada?

Mr. McNamee: I think those are the major ones, yes.

Senator Watt: The ministers from those departments should put their heads together to do something to help.

Mr. McNamee: And Parks Canada should be involved because they have the legislative mandate for that area.

Senator Watt: Can you give us some specific recommendations in writing?

Mr. McNamee: With respect to the specific departments?

Senator Watt: Yes. With respect to how these parks could be utilized for gathering information, creating inventories and things of that nature in relation to the environment.

Mr. McNamee: I can certainly try. It is important that you look at a cooperative approach with the universities, because they do a lot of work in that area. That would also involve others. You do not want only civil servants doing this work. You want many other people engaged, including the communities. There is also the whole question of how to bring the traditional ecological question into that.

Senator Watt: I have another question, which I had intended to ask at the beginning. What is the your organization's relationship with Greenpeace, animal protectionist groups, and all those various love-something groups that have hit us economically, particularly badly in seal hunting issues?

Mr. McNamee: I would characterize our relationship as informal. There are meetings and conferences across the country in which we participate. We are extremely careful when we develop alliances. In some cases, we do not work with them.

Some organizations do not allow the hunting of wildlife period. We do support that. We recognize that, for aboriginal communities, it is an important thing.

To be perfectly frank with you, the one area where we are cooperating formally is a green budget coalition that is trying to green-up the federal budget. It is important that we work cooperatively in that area because Greenpeace is taking on some programs such as climate change.

I would characterize our relationships with such groups as informal. Regarding our wildlife program, there is no cooperation.

Senator Watt: It is case by case.

Mr. McNamee: We are working together in one case. That is the green budget.

Senator Cochrane: You have asked us to contact President Clinton to help us in Alaska. I would remind you that this committee does not report until after the U.S. election. President Clinton will be in office until January. However, a new president will be identified before then.

Mr. McNamee: I recognize that, senator. That is why I suggested a letter. I know that about a hundred members of Parliament have already signed a letter that went to President Clinton several months ago. Louise Hardy, the member of Parliament for the Yukon, delivered that letter to the White House personally. Canada has a treaty and several other items covering that. We have a long political history in that area. I was only suggesting that you might want to write a letter.

The Chairman: You were talking about the world heritage sites. Are you speaking of the Arctic? There are a couple of sites in the Yukon -- Two Rivers and part of Kluane.

Mr. McNamee: Kluane is a world heritage site. I am not aware of any other in the Yukon. Two Rivers is a Canadian heritage site. Above the tree line, Canada does not have a world heritage site. The World Heritage Convention has remarked on that several times.

I am not suggesting that the federal government develop a nomination and submit it. It would be nice if it came from the local communities up through the federal government, which then would process that nomination.

The Chairman: It is a major problem in the smaller communities to develop infrastructure to service, whether it is education or tourism, and not have that capital come in from outside, as we would say. The land claims are providing some capital through their economic development programs. How would you see that capital being made available to the smaller communities so that, in fact, they could control their own destiny?

Mr. McNamee: You are pushing me into an area where I am not an expert.

The Chairman: Do you have any suggestions or something that we can follow up?

Mr. McNamee: I think the federal government obviously is one source. You may want to delve into how much is available under the land claim agreements and the territorial governments. How much are they prepared to invest in this area?

Depending on the kind of project that might be involved, you might want to turn to the Sonoran Institute in the U.S. They have done a lot of work on the gateway community concept -- that is, how communities can take advantage of the natural resources next to them and where can they find the funding. The Sonoran Institute looks at the entire range of communities, including Alaska, to find out how to do it. The Alaskan examples might provide something.

I am going out on a limb. There could be some foundations that might be interested in that. If there are those kinds of sources of financing, it is important that it be shown that other levels of government, plus the aboriginal people and communities and cling groups themselves, are part of the financial solution. The Sonoran Institute may be worth examining because they have looked at Alaska. We could give you some contacts there.

The Chairman: Have you some thoughts on how to integrate? As you pointed out, we know through the land claims dealing with parks that hunting and gathering is permitted use. How do you see that being implemented in communities where there are other interests to not do that? I am thinking particularly of the Yukon, where the First Nations are in a minority situation. The people in power are not from First Nations and are not able to go into the park and hunt and gather. How do you see that?

Mr. McNamee: We are facing that issue in the proposed Wolf Lake Park in southern Yukon. Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are looking to maintain that right. In fact, under the claim, the aboriginal people will. That is a difficult one for me to answer, senator, in the sense that those kinds of issues are dealt with government to government at the land claims table.

The challenge for conservation groups is to look at the non-aboriginal side of the equation. You might want to look at Wapusk National Park in Manitoba. That park was set up in 1996, and it has a different situation. It operates under treaty land entitlement agreements with the Province of Manitoba. Under the park agreement, aboriginal and non-aboriginal people are able to maintain a traditional way of life. On the non-aboriginal side, however, the negotiators agreed to phase out those activities after 35 years. You might want to examine that park agreement.

Senator Watt: In your presentation, you raised the lack of visibility after a park has been put in place. You do not hear of the park again once it has been set up. Could this be due to the fact that they are really not doing anything specific? If they were interested in itemizing activities that they wanted to do within each park, including environmental monitoring systems and things of that nature, then a way to expose it to the world might be possible. There is certainly no lack of that avenue to people. Do you agree that they would have difficulties until they started itemizing what they wanted to do in each park?

Mr. McNamee: My comment was a bit more specific. I think the story of how this park came to be should be told so that Canadians get the sense that aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people in the government are, in fact, cooperating to protect something. Instead of always hearing about what divides us, people would hear about the places where we have done something together.

In some cases, Parks Canada may not have put out the message because they are not ready for visitors. We do not have a master plan in place in Sirmilik. We have not done the inventories. It may be premature. However, the Parks Canada Web site does have a list for some places that includes kayaking and other activities that are available. On the other hand, perhaps everyone is relying on Parks Canada to send out the message.

I saw a couple of articles in American magazines about experiencing wild nature in Nunavut, and the national parks were not even mentioned. We have these fascinating places up there and they are not even mentioned. It is tough on the Nunavut government. The have only begun and they have more profound issues to deal with than marketing a national park. Nevertheless, it should be on their radar screen.

Senator Cochrane: Pursuing that topic, it seems to me that it would be the responsibility of the local government to get this going with Parks Canada. It might be something that we could pursue during our visit, Madam Chair. It is in the interest of the local people and government. The local government should take that initiative.

Mr. McNamee: To return to the example that you raised, all the discussions surrounding Wolf Lake in the Yukon are on how something was done twenty years ago. My experience has been that we do not establish parks like that any longer.

I am urging the committee to talk about the evolution in your report so that communities do not keep thinking Kluane, Kluane, Kluane. There are communities in the Yukon that think that Wolf Lake will emerge in a different context. It is important to tell the story of how things have changed. Sometimes a community believes that Kluane can tell them what to do.

The Chairman: Thank you for appearing. We appreciated your point by point review of the issues.

The committee suspended its proceedings.