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

Issue 2 - Evidence (afternoon sitting)

Senator Charlie Watt (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.

The Acting Chairman: Senators, we have representatives from the Aboriginal Tourism Team Canada and the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Welcome.

Ms Virginia Doucett, Executive Director, Aboriginal Tourism Team Canada: Honourable senators, "Kwe, Kwe", I greet you in the language of my first nation. I understand that you are about to embark on a series of northern trips, details of which I have just overheard. I understand that the goal of today's session is to try to get a national perspective on northern parks and aboriginal relations; therefore, I will approach my presentation more from a national perspective rather than zeroing in on northern parks.

I will briefly introduce you to ATTC so that you know from whence we come. I will also give you a quick overview of the industry. My colleague Mr. Jackson from the Canadian Tourism Commission will give you much more detail on the industry. I will talk about aboriginal tourism specifically in the context of the Canadian industry. I will provide some comments and observations that we have presented at other fora on the relationships of aboriginal peoples, parks and economic opportunities.

We are a national aboriginal tourism association. We are a partnership of industry and government. Our mission is to influence and develop tourism policies and programs for the benefit of aboriginal people in Canada. We have representatives from Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Parks Canada on our board of directors, so we are truly a partnership with government. We also have business interests at our table.

We do believe as an organization that only through partnerships can we create opportunities. This is a message that you may come across throughout your journeys.

ATTC is committed to protecting and preserving aboriginal traditions and way of life and the environment, all of which go hand in hand. They cannot be separated.

Our association has identified five key strategic areas, in which all of our activities are focused. These areas include industry development, community awareness and capacity building, marketing, human resource development and, of course, our own activities of communication.

This is not the first time that our association has been involved in the parks side of parks activities. For example, our chair, Sandra White, representing British Columbia, was asked to participate last year with the deputy ministers from both the federal and provincial departments of parks to discuss the role and relationship of aboriginal people and the economic opportunities that parks represent. That was followed up with an invitation for our chair to present at the recent federal-provincial ministers of parks conference held in Iqaliut in August, at which, again, the topic was aboriginal peoples and barriers and relationships with the parks.

At present, we are actively working with Parks Canada in preparing for Minister Copps' round table on aboriginal tourism, which will be held in mid-November. Therefore, we are not unknown to people in parks; we have been working quite actively in raising consciousness, if you wish.

I will now address the issue of the tourism industry. I wish to make it clear that when we talk about aboriginal tourism we are not talking about aboriginal cultural tourism. Aboriginal people participate in the full spectrum of tourism activities. We must convey the message that aboriginal people are involved in the broad spectrum of travel trade, transportation, accommodation, food and beverage, outdoor adventure outfitting, hunting and fishing, attractions events, ecotourism and cultural tourism. Some of those stand out as having logical fits with national parks; some are in conflict with some national parks policies.

Tourism is the largest industry in the world and is estimated to have a value $4 trillion.

Senator Cochrane: Are you speaking nationally?

Ms Doucett: No, I am speaking worldwide. Tourism, in a global context, is the biggest industry in the world.

Senator Cochrane: Could you speak about more specific areas?

Ms Doucett: I am trying to put the issue of tourism in context. Tourism is the world's largest industry. It is one of Canada's largest industries, contributing significant revenues to government coffers. It represents a significant percentage of GDP. We have the numbers for that.

To make the comparison, the Canadian tourism industry is worth about $51 billion. Our estimates from sources in a number of government departments, specifically the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and Industry Canada, are that the aboriginal tourism industry is valued at about $270 million. That represents about one half of 1 per cent of the Canadian industry. Therefore, we are not a big player today, an indication that we are not participating at the level that we probably could. If aboriginal people participated in the tourism industry in proportion to their percentage of the population, that industry would be worth $9 billion to them and would employ up to 40,000 people. Currently, about 16,000 aboriginal people are employed in tourism, and about half of those are in the seasonal sector. We certainly are not taking full advantage of the opportunities that exist in one of the biggest industries in Canada and one of the biggest growth industries. Tourism is a very people-oriented industry; it employs a lot of people. We believe that there are significant opportunities in tourism for First Nations, Inuit and Métis. As well, we believe that, just as a matter of geography, many of those opportunities rest in, near or within national parks.

There are a number of issues related to building the participation level of aboriginal people in the tourism industry, particularly to deriving those benefits from parks. There is the usual array related to training, to skill sets, to those types of human resources development that are there, and they are there everywhere.

As it relates to the parks, we have to acknowledge two areas, both of which have to be dealt with in a very open way. The first is related to communication. I cannot underestimate the importance of communication between communities and parks administration at the local level. There are stories and records out there that indicate that there have been problems, some of which go back a long way. Without communications, there are a number of things that will not happen. We will not have the necessary cultural understanding, which is important, especially as it relates to community relationship with the land. This is the concept of cultural landscape and sense of place that is so important to communities.

Ongoing, good communication leads to openness and respect, which is very important. This type of communication lays the foundation for good and trusting relationships between communities and parks administrators.

Communication also allows the community to become directly involved in the development and management of parks. Ultimately it will facilitate successful partnerships. Again, that word "partnerships" comes up.

We believe communication can only be achieved if parks staff is supported by the senior management -- and the powers that be, if you wish -- to take the time to learn about the local culture and to become familiar with the elders, the leaders and the other people in the community. This is where that relationship begins.

Aboriginal peoples must also be receptive. Our understanding is that they are. They are willing to engage in the opportunity to share their views and culture and to work with parks staff.

The second area that I want to introduce, getting more to your mandate, is that aboriginal experience with parks has a temporal element to it. We find that there is a difference between an older park and a newer park regarding the relationship between the communities and the economic development opportunities that exist. It is really a function of the prevailing attitudes of the day. When many of the southern parks were established, it was not customary, as part of the process of establishing the park, to seek out and consult with the aboriginal people whose territory was within the park. This practice has resulted in tensions in some areas. We see an evolutionary process, where access to traditional use of those lands that are within parks will have been curtailed or prohibited.

There is an excellent report from Riding Mountain National Park, a report that was produced in cooperation with the park and with the Western Regional Economic Development Corporation. This report speaks of the issues I have just referred to, within the context of Riding Mountain National Park. It provides an excellent insight into some of these issues. If you wish, that report could be made available to honourable senators.

The newer parks are different. We see now a genuine desire to bridge those gaps and to include aboriginal people. Thus, we applaud the efforts of parks in moving in those directions.

However, again, communications must be established on the ground, locally, to make that happen. The older parks still require a game of catch-up. We believe that there is a need for a more proactive approach to resolving some of the long-standing issues. This is beginning to happen and we are pleased with that.

Many of the northern parks are newer and are in areas that are predominantly inhabited by aboriginal people. Thus, we are seeing that the situation has changed. We are seeing much more involvement in terms of the establishment of the parks.

However, I do believe that there is still a need for improved relationships between parks and the aboriginal community. There is a need to re-establish a sense of dignity within parks, for aboriginal people affected by parks policies related to access and use. There is a need to negotiate changes to those policies that have a negative impact on relations to parks. Again, I talked about fees, access, et cetera.

Finally, there is a need to identify meaningful partnerships and activities that can benefit both parties.

Those are the key points I should like to make. We made recommendations to the federal-provincial ministers related to reviewing policies, with a goal to determining where "offending policies" exist and recommending how those would be addressed.

In conclusion, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I wish to say that ATTC fully supports the efforts toward improving aboriginal activities in the northern parks.

Mr. Murray Jackson, Vice-President, Product Development, Aboriginal Tourism Team Canada: Honourable senators, the CTC is a special operating agency within Industry Canada. It was created in 1995 as a partnership between the federal government and Canada's tourism industry.

Essentially, our mandate is to optimize Canada's potential as a tourism destination. We are primarily a marketing organization, but we are also involved in product development, research, and other activities designed to provide information to the tourism industry to assist in its decision making.

As I mentioned, the CTC was created as a partnership. At first, the federal government committed $50 million to the CTC, but it was on condition that the industry contributes matching funds at least. Because we have been successful in securing those commitments from the tourism industry, exceeding the original $50 million, our budget has been increased twice over the years. We now receive $75 million from the federal government. With this, we expect to attract approximately $85 million this year in commitments from the tourism industry.

As Ms Doucett has suggested, tourism is certainly a major force in Canada economically, with total tourism expenditures reaching a record of $50.1 billion in 1999. Tourism accounts for 524,000 jobs in Canada. I thought you might be interested in a brochure that we recently issued. We put it together with Statistics Canada. The brochure provides a number of tourism facts and figures; it is quite a handy reference. I will leave copies with your clerk.

Canada's national parks are, of course, an important part of Canada's tourism appeal. We work closely with parks officials in a number of areas of the country. However, I would like to say at this point that the emphasis really tends to be on the southern parks rather than those in the North -- the northern parks being the primary focus of this hearing. The southern parks at this point are world-renowned. They are certainly more accessible to the international visitor, and they have developed infrastructure around them in terms of accommodation, food service, tour operators and so on, services that the international traveller are looking for.

Aboriginal tourism is also an important part of Canada's tourism offering. We believe that the most effective way to sell aboriginal tourism is as an integral part of Canada's overall tourism offering. I also brought with me samples of our domestic tourism guide, as an illustration of our approach. This is a guide that is distributed within Canada in response to inquiries from Canadians looking for tourism information. Rather than producing a separate aboriginal guide, within each provincial section there are aboriginal products highlighted using the branding "live the legacy." This is the marquee under which we market Canada's aboriginal tourism product. Rather than a separate "live the legacy" brochure that might be produced in limited quantity and would require a totally separate marketing program, we think that the preferred approach is to incorporate aboriginal product in all of our mainstream marketing activities. An example of that would be the "live the legacy" section within each of the provincial sections of these particular guides.

Senator Cochrane: Who is responsible for distributing these brochures?

Mr. Jackson: The Canadian Tourism Commission.

Senator Cochrane: Are they distributed within Canada only, or in the U.S. as well?

Mr. Jackson: Those are just for Canada. We produce guides for all major markets in the world.

Senator Cochrane: If you produce them for all major markets in the world, are you distributing them to countries other than Canada?

Mr. Jackson: Yes, we are. The guide that we produce for France, for example, is different from the one that we distribute in Canada. The one that we produce for the United States is different.

Senator Cochrane: I was mostly interested in the United States. Do we distribute those in the U.S.?

Mr. Jackson: We distribute a different version, but it is the same idea.

Essentially, we will advertise an 800-number that directs people who are looking for more information on travelling to Canada to a particular number. Within the industry, those are known as fulfilment guides; they are used to fulfil consumer requests for more information.

Senator Cochrane: Specifically, where in the U.S. would these be distributed?

Mr. Jackson: They are distributed as a result of individual consumers calling an 800 number and requesting information about Canada. We would also distribute them at trade shows and in other areas where Canada's tourism industry is participating.

The key point is that rather than having a single marketing program for aboriginal product, we are trying to incorporate it within our mainstream marketing activities.

We currently allocate $800,000 specifically to the promotion and development of aboriginal tourism. With that we are seeking partnership opportunities, to which Ms Doucett has alluded and about which I will say a little bit more about in a moment.

There are three points that I should like to highlight with respect to the activities of the CTC and our support for aboriginal tourism. The first is the definition of aboriginal tourism. On this point, we differ somewhat from the definition you heard earlier. From our point of view, aboriginal tourism refers to products that have a distinct aboriginal cultural component. If a hotel or a tour business happens to be aboriginally owned but does not have a distinctive aboriginal cultural component that would be obvious to the visitor, we do not consider that to be part of the aboriginal tourism market. We focus on aboriginally owned businesses that are providing a distinct aboriginal cultural experience.

The Acting Chairman: Is that not splitting hairs?

Ms Doucett: In the aboriginal industry at large, CTC deals with one element or one area, which is what the market is looking for.

Mr. Jackson: Certainly the aboriginally owned businesses that do not have that distinct cultural component may participate in CTC programs, but it must be on the same basis as any other tourism business. They would not be highlighted as being aboriginal unless they delivered something that was distinctively different to the tourist. If, for example, a Super 8 motel happened to be owned by an Indian band, as an investment, in our view it would not be meaningful to promote that property as being representative of Canada's aboriginal traditions or delivering aboriginal content.

The Acting Chairman: We might differ on that.

Mr. Jackson: Clearly, when we speak of aboriginal tourism, our focus is something that has a distinctly different aboriginal cultural component, but we do recognize, of course, that there are a number of businesses in the tourism industry that, while they may be aboriginally owned, do not have that cultural component. As I said, they can and do participate in various promotional programs that we offer; however, they are not identified specifically as being aboriginal.

This is a different approach from the one taken at Aboriginal Tourism Team Canada. It is also different from the one used at Aboriginal Business Canada or other federal departments where the primary consideration is aboriginal ownership regardless of the nature of the business.

The second point I should like to make concerns what we refer to as market readiness, and that is an issue with respect to aboriginal tourism products. As is the case with other less developed sectors of the Canadian tourism industry, we find that many aboriginal businesses are not yet up to industry standards in terms of service quality, reliability, consistency and so on. For this reason, our emphasis in working with the aboriginal community at this stage is more in the area of what we call "product development" than marketing.

Product development refers to a range of activities such as conducting seminars and workshops, sharing best practices, and producing reference materials to enable aboriginal operators to better understand what it takes to be successful in the tourism business. Certainly there are some market-ready programs -- and you will find aboriginal businesses highlighted in those catalogues that I provided earlier -- that we are marketing, but when it comes to aboriginal product most of our effort at this stage is in the area of product development.

My third point is to emphasize that the CTC operates as a partnership. We do not provide grants. If we put money into a program, there must be matching funds from other sources. For the most part, we prefer that these funds come from the private sector. It is those private-sector financial commitments that, in the end, the government is holding us accountable for in terms of being a true measure of whether the tourism industry supports what it is we are doing.

We recognize that this is a constraint in the case of aboriginal businesses because there are relatively few aboriginal businesses that have the financial means to provide the partnership funding required. Consequently, we often look to other government organizations to provide a good portion of the partner funds required. In this regard, we have been working closely with Aboriginal Tourism Team Canada for the past two years in identifying projects that we both can support and that will help to optimize the potential of aboriginal tourism in Canada.

Those are my comments. We would welcome any questions.

Senator Andreychuk: It has been helpful to hear both of you. With respect to the northern parks and the possibility of tourism, I understand that there is something about development that is necessary in tourism. I come from Saskatchewan, where we have struggled to develop tourism in competition with other centres. Although it was not an aboriginal issue, the isolation factor was the same and hence the extreme costs of getting people and competing -- a smaller market versus a greater market. For example, if we were to talk about hunting possibilities, people would always go to Northern Ontario because they could slip easily into Toronto, catch a plane, land, get into a van and drive out into the open quickly. The travel conveniences are more numerous -- airlines, different routings, et cetera. Has either of you considered what it will take to increase tourism in the North? It will obviously take more development and understanding from the aboriginal partners. Is there a need to look at another method of government support, to overcome some of the physical barriers as well as the fiscal barriers to tourism in the north?

Mr. Jackson: The two are closely linked and thus there is the "chicken-and-egg" situation. Clearly, in order to attract significant numbers of tourists there is a need for infrastructure. By "infrastructure" I am talking about everything that a visitor would need in order to take that trip from Ottawa to a destination in the Far North -- air access, roads and hotel accommodations. Increasingly, we are a pampered group, looking for all the comforts of home even in the most remote location. We want to go out and enjoy the experiences during the day, but we want to come back to a warm bath and a good meal at the end of the day. That becomes a major hurdle in identifying who will provide the investment funds to try to develop that infrastructure. It has to be a very slow and gradual process.

When we get into the North, we also must be conscious of the issue of dealing with a relatively fragile environment. There is some question about whether we really want to bring thousands of visitors into some of these northern parks or whether that would be, in a sense, self-defeating. Rather, the target tourists for those parks are people who truly seek a wilderness experience and do not expect all the comforts that I described earlier. I believe that those "comforts" are representative of the mainstream tourism market. I tend to see the North as serving a different, more narrow and specialized group -- a hardier group -- of travellers who are not necessarily looking for all the comforts of home.

However, because they represent a much smaller group, I suggest that they will not get a lot of attention in terms of our investment and promotion because we are looking at the national picture that Ms Doucett described. If you decide to bring 500 visitors into a northern park location instead of several thousand visitors to an area of the country that is much more easily accessed, you must weigh those investment options.

Senator Andreychuk: To follow up, before Ms Doucett responds, my thinking in respect of the north, as in northern Saskatchewan, was always that it would be a select, targeted type of tourism. If there were a broad-brush approach, the expectations would go up, as you say. Therefore, tourists will come in to feed those expectations, but those that are traditionally there are often put aside.

Have you developed strategies that target a specific kind of tourist? Or, rather, is it still rather open and fluid as to what kind of tourism will be in the North and the parks?

Mr. Jackson: Our strategy recognizes a number of market segments, and we have specific programs that are attempting to deal with each of those segments. I had the opportunity to visit Prince Albert National Park about three-weeks ago. That is an area, certainly, that has tremendous potential, and it is relatively accessible from Saskatoon. That is a far cry from the Far North.

At this point, our strategy does not devote significant investment resources north of 60. We are looking at major cities and a whole range of tourism experiences, but in terms of our target markets one does not need to go north of 60 to get a true Canadian wilderness experience. It would be the more accessible locations, where there is some significant infrastructure, that we are trying to further develop as opposed to more of a "green fields" -- I guess it is a "white fields" situation in the Far North.

Ms Doucett: Much of the NWT and the northern territories partner with the CTC and are represented in the materials. However, they get the biggest bang for their buck at the international trade shows, where they present and promote their areas to a select audience who are actually interested in the North. This method of promotion is preferred, rather than launching large amounts of resources against trying to define this niche and that niche. In addition, the territories produce their own lure pieces, which are companions to these trade shows, and that information is readily available.

The issue of access is a serious one for the product that exists. For example, I can speak about the senator's own province where, with the merger of the two airlines, the number of flights into Saskatoon has dropped dramatically. There are, I believe, more than 300 outfitters in northern Saskatchewan; thus, current capacity could not provide one person per lodge for the summer for the season. There is not the facility to bring the tourists in. As a result, they are going elsewhere. From a national perspective, they are going to other places in Canada; but, obviously, from northern Saskatchewan's perspective, this is a big loss and a serious issue. There are issues related to access, particularly for smaller areas, where the industry is relatively smaller. That is the case with Saskatchewan.

In the North, the revenues are still small; they do not even show up as a blip when you look at revenues as a percentage. The Yukon -- in the Whitehorse area -- has done an excellent job of improving air access. There had been a routing issue; however, now people can be routed right through because there are a number of flights that come in every day. They also have an infrastructure that can support the improved air access and increased numbers of people -- the Alaska Highway, for example.

In Nunavut, access is a whole different ball game. As you know, access there is by air only for the most part. There are no roads. The cost to develop infrastructure is phenomenal. The cost of operating accommodations is phenomenal. The people we would be targeting are prepared to pay that, but getting them there is always the challenge. We say that those who are willing to pay those big bucks are low volume, high yield. I believe that Europeans would comprise the majority of them, although the Japanese are now moving into the North. These all raise other issues. Parks people are well aware of some of the issues related to safety, security and other things that must be built into any tourism development.

Senator Andreychuk: Building on your response, I know that the discussions and the difficulties are present day. However, if you look at other spots around the world where they grappled to get tourists, inevitably the tourists came. That is the growing market. People will inevitably travel more and more and they will try to find more and more pristine sights.

Has your organization any long-term view on where to cap this market, on what the signals would be that this kind of tourism will ultimately be destructive of the environment and the people who support it?

Ms Doucett: We do not have it as clear-cut as that. We are more oriented toward getting the industry up and running in different areas and toward building the partnerships. From our perspective, we see no cap on capacity. The more capacity, the more aboriginal people who will be involved.

Obviously, each park has its own way of determining the environmental capacity. That is beyond our capabilities of determining because that is not the business we are in. We want to move the aboriginal industry into the mainstream and get the people involved and benefiting from it.

There is obviously a limit to capacity and I think Parks Canada would be best to determine that. From a marketing perspective, I do not think there is one. There is certainly not one from our point of view.

Mr. Jackson: From a policy perspective, there needs to be an understanding of the trade-offs involved, if we are talking about significant economic development in terms of employment opportunities through tourism in the Far North. If we are to maintain the integrity of the parks and the environment, I see the potential for economic development and the jobs that would flow therefrom as being somewhat limited. We must recognize that there is need for balance there.

Senator Andreychuk: You are speaking from the parks perspective as opposed to from a northern perspective. For example, I know there is a great increase in the number of tourists since those times when I would go to Yellowknife. I understand that great numbers of tourists are now going into Yellowknife to see the northern lights and to get a quick taste of the North. That is a totally different concept than parks and protecting that area. You are making that distinction, as I understand it.

Mr. Jackson: Yes. In the case of Yellowknife, Whitehorse and Dawson City, there is certainly infrastructure there. Some significant economic development has taken place, and there is the capacity to handle many more visitors. Air service into those places is relatively good. However, in the more remote park locations, I see there being a conflict between the desire to preserve those parks close to their current condition and to attract significant numbers of visitors with all the economic benefits that would flow from that. We need to be conscious of that balance. Sustainability is one of the basic principles under which we have operated at the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Senator Cochrane: You have referred to communication between Parks Canada and various other groups. What are the views of the aboriginal people with regard to the comment that was made about conflict between the desire to preserve the parks and the desire to increase employment in aboriginal communities? What is the aboriginal view? Would they prefer to have more economic development within the boundaries of their parks, or just outside of them, or would they prefer to preserve the pristine area?

Ms Doucett: I cannot presume to speak on behalf of all the aboriginal people of Canada, but the comments I referred to were between local aboriginal communities and Parks. For aboriginal communities, economic development is important, but they have other options. There are a number of things that they will consider related to economic development that may not be specifically tourism. They may wish to engage in other activities such as resource development, resource harvesting, and subsistence hunting and fishing.

It is my understanding, and the message that we are trying to convey here, that the establishment and development of parks without the involvement from day one of local aboriginal communities tends to lead to an environment where, as matters proceed, there is no communication between the two. Aboriginal people are excluded from economic development opportunities, training and jobs that may result from the development of that park.

Also, where parks encompass traditional lands, there are places of traditional significance within those parks, a matter that can be very difficult for a non-aboriginal to understand. It is not an issue purely of economics and pristine preservation. It would be fair to say that the intent is not to disrupt or destroy the land but to be able to engage in the traditional use of the land. In some cases, that will be counter to the Parks Canada land use policy.

There are a number of considerations. They include economic opportunity related to parks management and administration and the jobs that are generated and the opportunity to continue traditional activities within the boundaries of the parks. Another consideration is access. One of the most frequent complaints I hear from aboriginal people relates to having to pay a fee every time they go into a park that is their traditional land.

These issues have arisen with respect to older parks. With the newer parks, there is much more involvement by local aboriginal communities that are affected by the development of a park.

I hope that answers your question. I cannot say that it is one thing or another; it is a number of things.

Senator Cochrane: We will have to ask the question of the specific groups when we get there.

Ms Doucett: Experiences will be different. That is why I said that I cannot speak on behalf of aboriginal people. I can only say that those are some of the issues that we have seen.

Senator Cochrane: I understood from some of the people who appeared before us this morning that the aboriginal people had some decision-making power.

Ms Doucett: Yes, that is what we have been seeing in recent years. I was referring to the fact that there is still some catching up to be done by some of the older parks where this was not done as a part of the establishment process. I think of the older parks in southern Canada, in particular. We see issues in Banff, issues in Riding Mountain. We see some issues in Wood Buffalo that are being resolved and worked on, and so on.

In the newer parks, and the North is the best example of those, as that is where many of the newer parks are coming on line, we are seeing the aboriginal people being involved, as I said, from day one. You will see a difference.

I do not want to overestimate the economic opportunities that exist there in terms of the type of economic benefits that will accrue. It depends on whether the aboriginal people are there as interpreters of their own culture and on whether there is appropriate interpretation of the local aboriginal culture.

Senator Cochrane: Absolutely. I was impressed with the magazine that you have, I must say. Do you have any idea how many calls you have received for this magazine, not just Canadian, but, say, in the U.S.?

Mr. Jackson: I will start with the Canadian. There was a print run of 300,000, of which approximately 75,000 are French and 225,000 are English. Ms Doucett can correct if I am wrong on these numbers. She used to work at the Canadian Tourism Commission and was responsible for our domestic programming.

Within the U.S., we are distributing several different materials. The total number would be in the order of 250,000, where people must call in and request the information. We also produce, in a number of major cities, inserts that go in the daily newspaper. In that case we would be reaching an audience of millions, if you were to add up the circulation of all of those newspapers.

Senator Cochrane: Within your tourism statistics, do you see a larger number of people visiting the North as a result of some of that distribution you referred to? Have you been following that?

Mr. Jackson: Yes. I must say we do not have any such statistics. In referring to the north, I am including all of the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut, as opposed to specifically the park areas that you are focusing on here. I do not have any such information.

We are seeing a growth in tourism in all areas in Canada. That reality may be one of the reasons why the federal government has been supportive of our industry, because of the economic benefits that can be demonstrated right across the country.

The Acting Chairman: You mentioned two reports, the report on Riding Mountain National Park and the report of Federal-Provincial Parks Ministers, 2000.

Ms Doucett: I do not think I mentioned a report.

The Acting Chairman: Does one exist?

Ms Doucett: There was a report prepared by the federal-provincial group that was working on tourism development and protected areas. That report was prepared for the meeting that was held in Iqaluit. We have a copy of that. I do not think it contains any secrets. We can probably make it available to you.

The Acting Chairman: We would appreciate if you forwarded forwarding that report to our clerk.

Ms Doucett: The other is a report that was prepared by Parks Canada, specifically Riding Mountain, and the Western Regional Economic Corporation. I will see if I can get a copy. The copy may not be a good one because I have a poor photocopier.

The Acting Chairman: I believe there is also additional information on the regional business tourism guide, designed to assess the regional business operations in the market and run the tourism operations.

Ms Doucett: That is a business planning guide that was prepared in partnership with the Canadian Tourism Human Resource Council. We provided the guide to our regional aboriginal tourism associations for distribution to new businesses and communities that are looking at tourism. I can leave a copy.

I will also leave a copy of the second in the series. It focuses on cultural tourism. This publication talks a great deal about questions related to sustainability, cultural, economic and environmental. They are in a question format. It is in the form of a checklist: Have you done this? Have you done that? At the back of the publication is a list of resources where one can get the answers. It was not our intention to provide answers but to give them something to check off against.

This one is literally fresh off the press; not even our board has seen it.

The Acting Chairman: Mr. Jackson, you said that the North should be looked at slightly differently from the way one looks at the parks in the south, in terms of what types of activities should be established in the North. One could both agree with you and, on the other hand, disagree with you. Has anyone in your department, to your knowledge, started to prepare a list of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable from the parks point of view, or the tourism, ecological or environmental point of view? Those might be important areas to visit at some point later on.

Ms Doucett: If I might respond, I believe that we have laid out some elements or criteria, if you want to call it that, in cultural tourism. There is a whole section on sustainability, referring to cultural, economic and environmental matters. It refers to things such as how to recycle grey water. There is a place to check off matters of this sort, rate yourself, if you wish, on your level. Those checklists would fit very well with any environment that is sensitive.

The Acting Chairman: Would you both support the Government of Canada allocating a certain amount of dollars toward an inventory assessment of the area, to consider the risk capital that would be required and also to consider transportation cost? For an entrepreneur in the North, transportation is a big factor; it comprises 50 per cent of revenues. Instead of dealing with one payload, you are actually dealing with two payloads, if not more at times.

Much of it has to do with the fact that there is a one-way flow in terms of air transport. Even if you have certain activities going into the North, there is nothing coming out of the North to reduce the cost of transportation. Could you make a comment on those three areas?

Ms Doucett: May I ask for clarification in regard to cost of transportation being half of the revenues? I assume you are talking about bringing supplies in. The client would pay the airline or the charter for his costs. Whoever did the packaging would price it to incorporate that and the profit.

Senator Andreychuk: Senator Watt is referring to something that both he and I heard at a meeting of the transportation committee when we were looking at mergers. What he is referring to is that the airlines say they cannot subsist up North simply on passenger traffic, that they must have a certain significant cargo load that demands enough economic activity to make those planes viable. If they relied on passenger traffic only, those airlines would fold.

The Acting Chairman: Nevertheless, the airline companies still reduce the airfare to even less than half of what they would normally charge. However, it still is very difficult to attract visitors to the North in the knowledge that they must pay a high price for their transportation. Perhaps there is a package deal that could be negotiated by the entrepreneur with the airline companies. That happens all the time.

Ms Doucett: A tour packager would work with both of them.

The Acting Chairman: My focus here is in regard to support, that is, whether the Government of Canada will recognize that factor and come up with the capital. The transportation factor holds back many potential opportunities. It boils right down to the infrastructure requirement because when you talk about infrastructure you are talking about an additional 50 per cent for the transportation factor. Would you be in support of doing the inventory and the feasibility studies for which the money is needed? Right now, apparently, there is no money from the government side to do the inventory, but you can obtain the feasibility study money if you go to the right department and the right organizations. At times, it is also hard to determine which is the right organization.

Mr. Jackson: I would say the feasibility study is certainly worthwhile. My suspicion is that the feasibility study will show that currently the potential for infrastructure development on a basis that would make any sort of economic sense is quite limited.

The Acting Chairman: You were pointing out earlier that the North should be looked at in terms of economic development. If you are thinking along that line, the North definitely needs a great amount of capital to get going; otherwise, it will never happen. We will keep on talking and we will not be able to act.

Ms Doucett: On the surface, I would agree. From my perspective, inventories are fragile things, and again I am not 100 per cent sure what you mean by inventory.

The Acting Chairman: When I speak about inventory I am talking about what is doable and what is not doable. For example, if we want to limit the area of activity in certain geographical areas for various reasons, such as the caribou calving grounds, we might want to prohibit motorized vehicle access to certain areas. If so, if you intend to transport people, how will you do that? You must look at the use of kayaks, canoes, dog sleds, and those kinds of thing. This is starting to get into the traditional activities of the Inuit.

Ms Doucett: I understand now what you mean by inventory. I believe that that would certainly be something that parks would love to have to work with.

The Acting Chairman: Is there anyone working on that at all?

Ms Doucett: From my perspective, it is being done at a local level. The parks administration, when they are in a new park, do a significant amount of research and study into the nature of the ecosystems that are involved. I do not wish to speak for Parks Canada, but that work is done. I had the product development file for the North many years ago, when I was with tourism; therefore, I am aware that efforts are made to identify those areas that can sustain. Sometimes it is hard for them to apply numbers. When you are in the northern parks, often it is a matter of how you proceed.

The senator was quite correct when he indicated things like restricting the use of land vehicles, how you walk on the land, et cetera. Those are matters that Parks Canada is best able to deal with, as they are the ones that are there from the scientific, ecological perspective. Communities and traditional use of those lands can also play a role because the aboriginal people have a unique way of relating to and using the land so that it sustains itself. If incremental dollars are available to move it to the next step in terms of economic development opportunities that are consistent, then, yes, we support that.

The Acting Chairman: We now have the Coalition of First Nations with Interests in National Parks. The next witness is Chief Morris Shannacappo of the Rolling River First Nation. Please proceed.

Chief Morris Shannacappo, Rolling River First Nation, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to be here. It gives me great pride to represent my community, my First Nation, at such a table. The presentation you see before you was prepared for me. These are not my words. However, I did look it over and it seems reasonable. First, I do not know if there are aboriginals at this table.

The Acting Chairman: You are looking at one right here.

Mr. Shannacappo: These days you can never tell.

The Acting Chairman: I must say the same thing applies to you.

Mr. Shannacappo: Half the people in Riding Mountain National Park swear they are aboriginal, but I do not know. These days, you can get an aboriginal card at a K-mart store or a Wal-Mart store and declare you are aboriginal.

The Acting Chairman: That would be great if you could get tax-free status.

Mr. Shannacappo: I do not think it is a tax-free status because I still pay tax.

The Acting Chairman: You and me both.

Mr. Shannacappo: First I will speak about myself. I am 39 years old and I am an elected official going into my second term. We have two-year terms in my community. My father was a chief for 16 years. After my father passed on, my brother took over. We do not have hereditary chieftainship; we have an election process. My brother was chief for 18 years and I am now going into my third year of chieftainship.

I know Ms Doucett from trade shows in Berlin. At Riding Mountain National Park, we have a teepee camp that was erected by our own people with some consultation with Parks Canada as well.

We won an award in Berlin, Germany. In fact, this year I will represent my camp and my people when I go to Austria to talk about the award, the camp, how the original vision started and where we want to take it. It was nice to get recognition in Germany because we certainly did not get recognition in our own country as a result of our tourism development.

Again, this tourism development was not paid for by Parks Canada but was done by our own people -- our development corporation. Ms Doucett mentioned the Western Regional Economic Development Corporation, where the original vision came from. I was an employment office there for seven years. At the end of my employment, I was making $60,000; as a chief, I make $30,000.

My father was Presbyterian and went to church quite regularly, and my mother was Catholic and went to church quite regularly. Once each week during summers, I went to Presbyterian church camp as well as catechism class. I decided on my own, from the Elders, to walk the way of my people.

Therefore, I fasted. On one of my fasts, I was awakened to what I am supposed to do here on earth -- and I enjoy it. Often, I get caught up in my human self, as well, with other humans. It is difficult at times, but I always wake up and remember that I am here as a spirit in a human body, trying to make the best of this human situation. If everyone could think like that, I think this world would revolve much better than it currently does. However, we are here to learn and for me, as a First Nations person, every day is a learning process. Now that you know where I am coming from, I will proceed with the presentation.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my experience with national parks. I recognize that your principal focus is to examine opportunities to expand aboriginal economic development in relation to northern national parks -- parks north of the 60th parallel. My own experience is with Riding Mountain National Park in mid-western Manitoba. Riding Mountain was of the first parks to be created, and it has had a negative impact on surrounding First Nations from the outset.

My grandfather used to live in Lake Audy, which is inside the park. He was born on the western side of the lake. I still go there to fish today. As Ms Doucett stated, perhaps it is because of my humanness that, when I go into the park, I do not pay and I do not take my boat. When I stop at the gate, I speak my language and ask them whether anyone who speaks my language is available to speak to me. In this area, we all speak Ojibway, and by rights, we should have an Ojibway person here as well. I gave the number to the chief warden, who also has a chief title, and asked him to come and see me if he wants to press charges. I let him know my whereabouts, but the warden has never come around. I icefish in the winter without a licence, and I fish in the summer without a licence. Again, I let them know at the park gate because questions like these have to be answered.

Recent decisions such as Delgamuukw and Marshall all fall into play. Thus, I am exercising an inherent right on my traditional land -- what I view as "my traditional land." I always announce my beliefs. I am not looking for an altercation; rather, I am looking for a happy medium to sit at the table in order to resolve matters.

We would hope to offer some lessons that might lead to improved practices in the North. However, I would also like to encourage you to broaden the scope of your consideration and make recommendations to include national parks, national park policies and national park administration throughout Canada. There are many persistent problems in relation to national parks and First Nations. There have been few economic benefits, and these are far outweighed by the impacts of loss of traditional territory and exclusion from employment and economic activities associated with national parks. There is room for much improvement in terms of expanding national park-related economic development opportunities for First Nations.

On this point, we met with national park staff about a month ago, and they came right out and blatantly asked, "What would you like to see?" I said that I would like the same amount of economic-based land as that which is currently held by non-aboriginal people. I went on to say that one of our grandfathers lived on the developed shore. There are now third- and fourth-generation business owners within Riding Mountain National Park. We also have our third- and fourth-generation welfare recipients in my community.

I watched my father build a foundation for my community and I watched my brother come along and do the framework. Because of my background in economic development, I come along to put the roof on.

I believe that the Creator put us here and gave us a special gift. How we perform with that gift will determine our reward in the end -- in the spirit world.

I am trying to keep the honour that has been part of our family tradition since the days of my grandfather. My grandfather came to Ottawa in the early 1990s to try to get our sun dances reinstated. He did not get them reinstated, so they just moved further into the bush. We cannot move further into the bush. I have asked Parks Canada for the same land base. I said to them, "Can we have the same amount of acreage so that we can develop it?" The response included a very puzzled look. "Why would you want to take a protected piece of Parks Canada so that you can develop it?" they asked. I responded, "Because I want equality. I want the same opportunities that you and your people had that my people were thrown out of. I want the same opportunities for my people so that they can go in and develop a business that is in relation to ecological integrity." That is what our camp is based on. However, we did not receive any park dollars, so we lease our own traditional land back from the Queen. To me, I do not think that is right.

We do not want to destroy the ecology, but we want the chance to put forward our business plan and to discuss any further benefits in the area of employment.

I think that my wife works in the park because of my big mouth. The wife of one of my council members works in the park. I phoned home today. Over the weekend, the grand chief, who has been the chief of our community for 18 years and is a half-brother of mine, made a speech where he said, "We will put a roadblock at Riding Mountain National Park coming from our community." I asked why, and he replied, "It will be in support of Burnt Church. We will not create a barricade, but we will slow traffic and give out information. We will not prevent people from coming to our homeland; we will just slow down the traffic and, I hope, educate some of the people about treaty rights and the areas of Burnt Church." As well, I am preparing a paper, which I will circulate, on our relationship with Parks Canada.

There are about three people from my community who work in the park. At one time, there was a 25-mile radius for hiring purposes -- within a 25-mile radius of the park and the application would be accepted. They would consider aboriginal people as well. Right now, I think we have up to five positions there during the summer. My wife works in the park during the summer. She is laid off at the end of the summer and goes on UI.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Are the five positions permanent?

Mr. Shannacappo: No. The jobs are seasonal. I have fought for the past 15 years with Parks Canada in the area of employment. I have sat at a round table with them. I regret sitting at one round table because they deemed it a consultation. None of the recommendations I made were heard, but they were able to say that they consulted with the First Nations because they had Morris Shannacappo, who is now a chief, sitting at the table as a representative of these people. As much as I try to represent my people, there were 26 others who were still saying "nay" around the table. Another First Nations person who was at that table with me dropped out totally and said, "There is no bloody way that I am going back to that table." I sat there and took it. It was difficult at times, but I stayed because I felt I could help make change.

This morning, my counsel phoned me and said, "Don't make too many waves. We have people employed at the park and we do not want to jeopardize them." I said, "Don't even feed me that. My wife is working there. I would not jeopardize her position in any way, but what about the rest of the people sitting back home?" Our community is currently developing a 10-year sustainable development plan so that I do not have to come to Ottawa to argue for money, so that we can pay for our own government under the process of developing a self-governing system.

Part of that must be partnership. I am trying to partner with Parks Canada as much as possible. We are trying to partner with the local communities as much as possible. We have invited them to many of our meetings, and they have attended, but obviously they are not decision makers right at the table. The decisions must be made in Ottawa. It is difficult to plan anything with this group because they say, "We will see what happens down east."

Riding Mountain National Park is surrounded by First Nations that have always used the unique environment, plants and wildlife. The resources of Riding Mountain were key assets in the economies and traditional territories of First Nations in the area.

Imagine being kicked out of a place you depend on for your whole economy. Imagine that your food, health, shelter and clothing rely on that parkland, that whole traditional territory, and then you are booted off. Imagine your house being burned down, a cabin that had been built. I do not think you can imagine that. I do not think any of you can imagine those things happening, especially today. These things happened only 60, 70 years ago. It is unimaginable as we sit here today. That is why I had to let you know who I am from the very beginning because I had to let you feel that piece of me that still hurts from this.

Resentment? Yes, there is resentment, but we do not fuel that resentment. We try to talk as partners. That is why I tell the warden, when I go through the gate, "Listen, we have to talk. We have to go and sit at the table. Let us talk." That is why I continue to go in and let them know I am going fishing. It is my hope that the warden will come and talk to us at a common table, where we can discuss all these issues and come to some resolution.

With establishment of the park came disaster. Reserve land within the park boundaries was expropriated without compensation. The community of Riding Mountain Band -- Keeseekoowenin First Nation -- was burnt to the ground. That is where my grandfather on my mother's side came from. His house was burned to the ground. Treaty rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather food and medicines were denied. Access to sacred places was restricted. We lost everything without any consideration being given to our rights to the land.

Keeseekoowenin did get some land back. However, they cannot develop it in any way unless Parks Canada gives them the okay. I have talked to people from the area who have told me they want to develop a hotel-motel. I said, "Why don't you?" They said, "Because Parks Canada does not allow us to." They got land back but they cannot do anything with it. They can go swimming and camp out, and that is about it.

Things have not improved that much. Keeseekoowenin has only just recently managed to regain their reserve lands within the park boundaries. We have had very little access to employment or economic opportunities associated with the park. We have no role in management of the park, its resources or its use today. Treaty rights and traditional use are not respected or reflected in parks policy or administration.

Where does this leave us, in terms of opportunities for expanding First Nations economic development in relation to the national park? It leaves us with plenty of room to expand because so little has been done or tried. In fact, the park and park administration have been a great hindrance to our development. The park was created at the expense of First Nations and their resource base, and we have gained little economic benefit from it. Parks Canada has been very reluctant to acknowledge our rights and relationship to the land or to work with us to translate that into contemporary benefits.

What is missing at Riding Mountain, and what may be expected to be missing in the North as well, is a true honouring of treaty and aboriginal rights. The courts have been giving good guidance on this lately but government has been slow to respond.

The courts tell us that our rights should be interpreted in contemporary terms consistent with the original spirit and intent of our nation-to-nation relationship with Canada. They tell us that the honour of the Crown is dependent on honouring treaty and aboriginal rights. The Supreme Court ruling in the Marshall case is a good example: A 1760 treaty was brought forward to contemporary terms as a continuing right to harvest commercially valuable resources -- a right to make a living. Unfortunately, the Burnt Church situation testifies to how poorly government responds.

Let us look at what contemporary terms might mean in relation to Riding Mountain National Park or the parks you are concerned with in the North.

Spirit and intent: To start with, the original spirit and intent was to share the land, but now we have a park that excludes many traditional uses -- economic, cultural, social and spiritual.

Consultation: No park plan should be developed without full involvement of First Nations. In our case, we had none.

Formal agreements: Favourable policy and goodwill are not enough. Legally binding agreements are the appropriate mechanism.

Traditional use: Traditional use must be guaranteed by formal agreement. In our case, we are fighting a rearguard action to regain recognition of our rights. In the North, this should not happen. The courts will eventually catch up. Park plans should be designed around traditional use. The Senate subcommittee may wish to review the Wapusk National Park Agreement and the Manitoba/Canada/First Nation Protocol Relating to Endangered Species.

Management and stewardship: Who better than First Nations to manage the natural jewels of Canada? The national park system should be managed by First Nations. This would be an honourable acknowledgement and practical expression of the true spirit and intent of our relations. Stewardship and conservation are much more central values to First Nation cultures than they are to mainstream Canadian society.

There is an interpretive centre in Riding Mountain National Park that does not employ one local aboriginal person. I used to enjoy going there to ask questions about First Nations people just to hear them squirm and make up some stories. Never once was I told the truth about what truly happened in Riding Mountain National Park. They always told me a good story about how they came to save this land, but never did they tell me that First Nations people lived here. Never once did they said that there was an economy here, that the First Nation had a true love for this land, that this is where it began for the First Nation, that this is where it always was for them. Never once have I heard that from any interpreter.

We designed a program where we trained our own people to interpret. We trained them to be able to talk about history, to be able to take a piece of history that was written and documented and to present it in a manner that is understood by children, even five, six or seven year olds, who have very short attention spans. We managed to educate those five, six and seven year olds as well.

I said to Parks Canada, "We have trained 20 people in this area. Why can you not adopt five of them and let them work in the interpretation programs?" I was told, "Tell them to apply for these positions." "There are no positions," I said. "How are they going to apply if there are no positions?" I told them that if we are going to be partners, then we should look at the issue of job creation. I told them that they should take at least two of my people right from the community and let them tell their stories, tell the true history of the national park and its relationship to native peoples in the area.

What did they offer? They said, "You know what? We will give you two of our employees who are interpreters. We will make a trade-off." That is not what I was getting at. I wanted them to take two of my people, pay them the government rate, the rate they were paying their interpreters, and then let them get a nice pension in 25 years, after they have put in their service. That is the kind of money I want to see my people make, not a meagre $7 per hour. We find it very difficult to generate the type of revenue needed to make that paycheque. When we started our teepee camp, we had 17 employees. Now we have three employees. It is not well enough sustained. Yet, it was a good enough project that it went on to win an award in 1997 that got world recognition.

Why is this project not working at the community level? Why do Parks Canada employees tell people at the gate, "We have no room at the campground, we are full"? They choose not to mention our campground, which is located inside. During the May long weekend, Parks Canada employees were turning visitors away because there was no room left. We had about 20 campsites left. Front-gate employees were not telling visitors to the park about vacancies at our campsite, which is owned and operated by First Nations people. They did not promote us.

The infrastructure is in poor shape. The pavement is all beaten and battered and they want us to pay for the repairs. They want us to put in new infrastructure. We cannot afford it. I do not even know if we can afford to operate another year. Yet, it is such a beautiful program.

Today we have people coming for five weeks at a time from Germany. On October 14, I am leaving for Austria to talk about our program and vision. Why are we now being asked to share these stories? We were not allowed to share them in the past. We wanted to, but our words fell on deaf ears.

Spiritual awakening is happening worldwide. People want to know more about it. According to prophesy, this started 30 years ago. People were starting to awaken 30 years ago to what might happen and the atrocities that might occur. Mother Nature is striking back. When we rape and pillage our own bodies, when we take out our vital organs, we shake, get sick and sweat. That is what is happening to our Mother right now. Those are the ecological messages we are giving people.

The ecological integrity of the entire Mother Earth is what we are trying to promote, not just in our region but in regions all over. The reason we have so many visitors from Germany coming is that they live such a structured life. They are awake at 7:00 a.m., they are on the street at 8 a.m., they are at work at 9:00 a.m., they are eating at 12:00 p.m. and they are back at work at 12:30. Everything is so structured there is no time to have fun.

Obviously they have something lacking and what is lacking is that spirituality. They became totally human and totally forgot that there are humans who are evolving, living out there as well. They are now in search of that something. People are searching and they do not know where to look. They are going to places such as India to seek the wisdom of the Eastern Indians. They are coming here to speak with First Nations people, to ask why they are going through this, why their bodies are reacting as they are, why their thoughts are starting to change, to determine what is happening.

We tell them what is happening. We welcome them into our sweat lodges. We welcome them into our sun dance lodges, to let them know how we practice, to let them experience our closeness to Mother Earth, our stewardship. That is what we talk about. We do not tell them bad stories; we do not tell them about the bad things that happen. We know they know. There are many things we do not tell them. Why bother? We are not trying to make anyone look bad; we are trying to show that we can live in a community together with different cultures. That is what we are trying to do. We are proving it. We just want a little more help from Parks Canada side.

Turning to the subject of employment economic opportunity. There are many economic opportunities associated with national parks. Ecotourism, for example, is a real growth industry. Right now, park infrastructure, maintenance, lands and resource management, regulation and administration are all areas that First Nations should have primary access to as the original stewards of the land.

On the matter of employment equity, in our own experience we have been excluded from employment in the park's administrative system, and that is wrong. It is contrary to the policy of the federal government and the repeated recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We are told to solve it in the North, to do it with formal agreements that reflect the aboriginal majority.

Turning to the subject of employment equity. We trained four men and one woman in the area of heavy equipment operation. They were all certified by Assiniboine Community College, out of Brandon. One of our men applied for a job at Parks Canada, at Riding Mountain National Park, as a heavy equipment operator. The only machine that man got to operate was a snowplough and a grader. When he was asked if he could operate other heavy equipment, he said that he could and that he was also certified in their operation. He did not do too well on the interview, but he was one heck of an equipment operator.

Unfortunately, there was a non-aboriginal who talked his mouth off and got the job. I went to his employer and whether the man was a good snowplough operator. I was told that the guy had never operated the snowplough. He started it once, but he never operated it. Here we have a guy that did not operate the equipment but he could speak his head off, so he got the job through the interview. Ten months along the road, this operator was in a life-threatening situation where he was almost fatally electrocuted.

This was an atrocity. The man who got the job has six, seven relatives working inside Parks Canada today. Our guy was left out. We put in a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. Our complaint was heard and it was addressed simply because it was not fair that our certified operator was not hired over someone else less qualified.

I asked Parks Canada why this happened, why our guy, who was certified, was not employed. That is why we put forward a complaint to the Human Rights Commission. It seems that you can do a whole family tree -- and I probably could get one and send it to this table -- of all the employees at Riding Mountain National Park who are related. It is funny that it happens.

One of my high school buddies was hired this year as a park employee. He got in through one of our non-aboriginal buddies. They told him that there was a job opening and that he should apply for it. Our First Nation office never got the job opening application. Who got it? People who were already working inside the park. They were asked if they knew anyone who could fill this position. That is how my buddy got his job, because a non-aboriginal friend told him there was a job coming up. He applied, he got it. Did anyone else find out about it? No. I found out about it three weeks after. He told me.

Many things do not go to the community. They tell the staff and they see if they can fill it with their own families. Unfortunately, this is a common practice in Riding Mountain National Park.

I shall now discuss an integrated governments-wide strategy. The promise of Canada's central policy on aboriginal peoples, Gathering Strength, is to bring all the resources of Canada, First Nations and other aboriginal peoples, provincial and territorial governments, the private sector and the Canadian public together in a coordinated effort to make things right in our long and troubled relations. This is the right message and approach. Realizing the necessary change requires real sustained commitment and openness to honouring First Nations treaties, rights and the realities of where we are right now. This is not just a Parks Canada issue. We need an approach that incorporates training, employment, business development, institutional policy change, and cultural development.

Parks can and should be an economic engine for revitalizing First Nations. Parks can also be a vehicle for education for all Canadians on the lost tradition of our treaty relations and aboriginal rights.

In practical terms, expanding opportunities for aboriginal economic development in relation to national parks requires the following: It requires that the honour of the Crown be upheld; it requires that aboriginal people be involved in parks' management as stewards from policy to field implementation; it requires that traditional use be guaranteed; it requires that aboriginal access to parks-related employment and commercial opportunities be ensured by agreements, government policy and action; it requires that government invest in the capacity development and public education required to set things straight, to regain the honour of the Crown and to manage our heritage in the national parks system.

Senator Ione Christensen (Chairman) in the Chair.

The Chairman: My apologies for arriving late in the presentation. I was unavoidably delayed.

Senator Cochrane: I have one question. Tell us about your 10-year plan for sustainable development.

Mr. Shannacappo: Our 10-year plan began when I came in as chief, in April 1998. I asked the people in my community to get together for a band meeting at which I would unveil my master plan. It was the largest band meeting ever recorded in our community's history, with 99 per cent of the community represented. Family members came; their children came. When it came time to unveil the master plan, I asked the people how they hoped to see the community in 10 years.

No one said anything; therefore, I started pointing out some things that I wanted to see in our community, such as aiming at 95 per cent employment rate and developing a healing ranch. I did not know how it would look but I suggested a healing ranch. Finally people started talking and together we made a wish list of over 200 items we wanted for our community. With that wish list in hand, my council, myself and our economic development officer began to shortlist what we could do tomorrow in terms of our human resources. We started with farming. A band farm is now up and running. We have over 220 head of cattle. The farm is self-sustaining. It employs four people out of a community of 386. That employment never existed in the community before.

Our plan includes a large tourism strategy. We wanted to involve Parks Canada but knowing where we got with our teepee camp we could not bring them to the table again. However, we still wish to piggyback on their success because last year there was a million vehicle count going into the Parks Canada facility at Riding Mountain National Park. Our plan is to build something outside of the park so that my people can get $1 from each car, thereby improving our employment opportunities. I have also told any entrepreneurs in the community that they are welcome to forward their business plan. I welcome any entrepreneur who wishes to come forward with a viable plan that the band can support and give money to help out as well. These entrepreneurs will then hire people from our community, again, raising our employment rate. Last year, for three months we had a 95 per cent employment rate.

Before our election this year, I have been advised to make house visits. I did not see the need to start that when I had not done so before. I would not want to be looked at as being after people's votes. Instead, I plan to outline in written form my achievements over the past two years since I was elected.

Every year we were building three houses, and we have a housing backlog of 54. We are slowly catching up.In the past two years we have built five homes. We went to the United States to look at a plant that builds panelled homes and we are hoping to bring this method of construction to my community. We have made contact with people in Mexico who have purchased these panelled homes. We have a marketer on board even though we have not even opened the doors of our company yet. We have at least 40 carpenters and a few journeymen who rely on housing construction during the summer. We are currently studying markets in Germany, in the former Soviet Union and in Poland, and we hope to be able to supply people there with houses. As well, we wish to mortgage these houses to our own people.

On the subject of taking responsibility, everyone in our community has assured me that they would pay a minimum rent for every house that is afforded to them. Therefore, do not tell me that we want everything for free, because we are there, we are answering our own problems, and we are trying to do it in a way that people can still enjoy life and live in harmony with the communities in the surrounding areas.

We are also looking at a transport company. We are paying high prices for transport, especially to areas up North. We are paying these higher rates because we do not control the transportation. If we start up our own transport company, we will control our shipping costs. We will own the trucks and we can start trading with other northern First Nations communities.

We can grow fresh vegetables. In my community, I can buy a bag of potatoes for $2. In a northern community, you can buy one potato for $1. In my community, way down south in Brandon, you can purchase a six-pack for $7 or $8. In Churchill, you can purchase a six-pack for $7 or $8. What is the problem here? Why is it that you can pick up alcohol for the same price right across the province but a potato you cannot? Many of my people are suffering from sugar diabetes. Many children in the northern communities are now being born with diseases. There is not enough money to buy healthy foods. Many people are living on Coke, they are living on chips, and they are living on other junk food. The children are inheriting these diseases because their parents cannot afford to eat in a healthy way.

I am trying to change my community. I plan to do this for 10 years. I have already told my people that I will be their chief but that I will not stay forever. I will not hunger for power. While I am there, I will train some young people. We have two people going to law school now. I hope one day one of these individuals becomes a chief. Three years have gone by since one has been studying political science. Now he is going into law. I have already indicated that when this young man completes law school in six years, when I am ready to retire from what I am doing now, he should become our chief. A young woman from our community has also started law school, and I say the same thing about her: Let us elect her chief or councillor one day. Let us prepare them right now.

I spent the summer with one of these students, and the main thing I emphasized to him is humility. I have encouraged him to be a good human being, to love everything, to have the courage to go and look for wisdom from the elders, and to have the courage to try and learn something every day. If it is not about humanitarianism, then learn something about culture, learn something about the ecology, learn something about the system. I told him that in my home I have my own library, which I have created from the many things I have studied. I have travelled the world, I have seen India, I have seen Australia, and I know the Creator sent me to these places to learn so that I could bring back a good livelihood to my people. That is what I am currently doing.

Our 10-year plan also includes viable businesses, and we are currently looking at some. An example is the housing problem project and the band farm. At one time I was given a dream about a horse ranch. I woke up at three o'clock in the morning and started writing down my dream; I did not finish writing until 6:30. I dreamed I was at a ranch. In my dream, I saw how the ranch was built, how it looked. In my dream, each child in the community was to get a pony to care for, in order to learn responsibility. This horse ranch will be Ojibway immersion, so only our language will be spoken. Of course, I will be looking at bringing in the Anglicans, the Catholics and the Presbyterians, all of whom were involved in residential schools. I will bring them in so that they can share their teachings with the children in the same manner I was raised.

I was able to make my own decision as to how I wanted to live my life. I believe in the Christ and I believe in the Buddha. Those are very good teachings. Therefore, I also want our children to have the opportunity to follow their own path. I respect my mother when she goes to a Catholic church. Some Fridays when I go to the sweat lodge, she asks where I am going. When I say that I am going to church, she knows I am going to sweat. She has that respect, too, because she knows what that culture did for me as a person, how it woke me up and how it helped me share my life with my people, who I love very much.

Senator Cochrane: How many people do you represent?

Mr. Shannacappo: In my community, I represent 386. We have 364 people off reserve. These people left because they wanted to look for a certain lifestyle.

I have been arguing with ministers since I got in. I met with Bob -- I call him cowboy Bob and perhaps I should apologize for that -- in Winnipeg for one of our meetings. I told him that we were developing a 10-year plan for self-sustainability in our community. He thought that was good but said that he did not come to Winnipeg to hear about that. He began to talk about something else -- treaty implementation and good promises. At our next meeting, I was ready to give him our 10-year plan, but he told people, "I want people to start developing 10-year plans, sustainable development plans." That was what I tried to tell him about at our previous meeting. I was prepared to give him our plan at this meeting, but he said, "I am only talking to the media today." I approached the microphone and said, "Chief Shannacappo from the Rolling River Newsletter." Bob walked away, even though there was another chief who wanted some answers. As he walked out, we yelled after him about our 10-year plan. He looked back at us and said, "Get a life." That was exactly what I had in my hand -- a life for my community -- and he walked away from me. He wants treaty implementation -- get real!

The Chairman: You covered a great deal of information, and we appreciate that; I like your enthusiasm. You talked about the frustrations but in a way that is more optimistic than cynical. Are you a band that has settled claims?

Mr. Shannacappo: We are a treaty land entitlement band, Treaty No. 4. The non-aboriginal people in our area congregated and said, "Do not sell to the Indians." As proof of that, we were supposed to be able to purchase land in our area for between $200 and $245, as per our settlement, but actually we pay over $500 an acre for people who just want out of farming, because there is no money in farming today.

Senator Watt: Is that $500 per acre?

Mr. Shannacappo: We pay more than that.

Senator Watt: Is that on a yearly basis?

Mr. Shannacappo: We pay that to purchase the land to return it to the treaty reserve. Again, it has been a hard fight. We recently acquired some Crown land in the national park where our tepee camp is located. We had a lot of trouble with local members who said, "How can they give the land back?" Well, let's look at history to see exactly what transpired.

The Chairman: You may have answered this question, but does your treaty include any agreements with Parks Canada?

Mr. Shannacappo: We have none whatsoever.

The Chairman: Would you be open to such an agreement?

Mr. Shannacappo: Yes.

Senator Watt: Are you negotiating now?

Mr. Shannacappo: We are having discussions under Bill C-27. I think there has been only one discussion. However, when blatantly asked what it is that I want I name those items and get a few strange looks in response, as if to say, "Are you crazy? You will never get that." Well, why did they ask?

The Chairman: When I first came in, you were alluding to the problem of nepotism, shall we say, in the hiring in parks. Has there been any agreement or policy regarding the hiring of First Nations employees in the park?

Mr. Shannacappo: They brought in an aboriginal employment-equity person. When the 25-mile hiring radius practice was in force, we were not included. They have now opened it to a 100-mile radius. That makes it even more difficult.

Again, even my brother-in-law was hired there. When we talk about visible minorities, he was very visible because he was the guy cleaning out the culverts along Highway 10. People could see that there was an Indian working there. He was so visible. He was on Highway 10 daily; everyone saw him.

Again, I still think they hired him because of my big mouth, once my brother-in-law made that connection. It goes back to nepotism. I could probably get my whole family in there but that is not the point that I want to make. Instead, I want to see just employment for my people. There are so many native professionals who have university or college degrees. Where are they working? They are not in Parks Canada; yet they wanted to work there.

The person who applied for the position of heavy equipment operator became one of my council members. However, he suffered a heart attack and is no longer in politics. He is at home now. It goes back to all those points I made. That man took the time to upgrade himself so that he could get in line for a job with Parks Canada, but he was not hired.

The Chairman: Any further questions?

Mr. Shannacappo: Thank you for having me at the table. I want to thank Parks Canada for trying to make better movements in this area of partnership.

The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Merritt. Welcome and please proceed.

Mr. John Merritt, Representative, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I do not have any written text, but I do have some documents from NTI to which I will refer.

I work for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. I am half of the two-person Ottawa office. Our main office is in Iqaluit, and we have sub-offices in Rankin Inlet and Cambridge. I understand the committee will be travelling, so you will have a chance to meet the elected leaders and staff people who work at those offices.

Nunavut Tunngavik was given the mandate under the land claims agreement in 1993 to represent Inuit for land claims purposes <#0107> that is, essentially, asserting and defending the rights of Inuit under the agreement. Nunavut Tunngavik takes a pretty broad view of that; thus, in addition to helping to implement the land claim agreement it also gets involved in broader social policy topics in Nunavut. Since the creation of the new government, in April last year, Nunavut Tunngavik has been working out a number of joint initiatives with the new government, as you probably would have expected.

Ours is a non-profit federal corporation. There are about 20,000 Inuit enrolled under the agreement.

The Chairman: Is the incorporation involved with development? I am trying to compare it to the Council for Yukon First Nations; is it similar?

Mr. Merritt: I do not think the status of organizations in Nunavut would be quite as complicated because you do not have the same number of First Nations.

The Chairman: Do you hold elections for president?

Mr. Merritt: That is right. The elected leaders are elected across the entire Nunavut area by popular vote. There is a staggered term, so we have some continuity as well as elections.

The Chairman: Does it oversee the whole of the agreement, in economic and social development?

Mr. Merritt: Yes. It is across the board and refers to all articles under the agreement.

There are three regional associations, which may be likened to sister organizations. The board of directors is made up of representatives from those three regions. Thus, we do have somewhat of a federal structure, to put it that way. Those regional organizations have their own specific mandates under the land claims agreement in particular relation to land ownership. Therefore, many of the responsibilities are delegated out. The agreement allows for a flexible regime, where responsibility could be allocated to the level of native organization that would best suit the particular topic.

In terms of my background, I was involved in the land claims negotiations from 1979 to 1993. I was involved in the 1990s in the work of Nunavut Implementation Commission, which was the statutory body helping to design the new government. Since April 1, 1999, I have been working for Nunavut Tunngavik.

I have not been involved in the actual negotiation of Nunavut impact and benefit agreements. In that sense, I can give you some introduction to your trip to Iqaluit; however, to actually talk to people who have spent months and years at the table on that specific matter, you will be getting more insight from people with NTI later.

I shall offer a general background statement about national parks and how Nunavut Tunngavik sees them, and then perhaps a thumb-nail sketch of NTI's experience to date in negotiating with Parks Canada in the wake of the land claim agreement in 1993. The kickoff statement is that Nunavut Tunngavik and its predecessor organization, which have different names but are essentially the same folks, in developing its land claim negotiating position took a very positive approach to parks. Parks were seen as a useful tool, for a couple of reasons. They offered a fairly effective protection for use of the land, and the whole planning process that accompanied parks was seen as a potentially valuable thing. There are many qualifiers to that, such as maintaining hunting rights in parks. However, parks were generally seen as a positive thing and an essential part of putting together a good negotiating position.

The Nunavut land claims agreement provides for at least one park in each natural region of the North. It was not a question of being sceptical as much as really wanting a park. The other side of that is that NTI saw parks as potentially serving a valuable economic development function. There was much interest both before and during the negotiations in using parks to deliver some tangible benefits to people living in the North. Everyone in Nunavut is aware that tourism has huge potential. There are big obstacles and problems, but tourism and parks are seen as important economic development tools.

The NTI was instrumental in including provisions in the land claims agreement that deal with Inuit impact and benefit agreements. I have not made a study of this, but I believe I am right in saying that the Nunavut land claims agreement was the first agreement to provide that national parks would have to be accompanied by impact and benefit agreements. Similar mechanisms may exist in other land claims agreements, but NTI invested much in ensuring that parks would be opened in a way that is not only consistent with their larger national purposes, but also is beneficial to the Inuit, to avoid negative impacts such as too many visitors or the wrong concentration of visitor use.

The overall statement is that parks are seen in a positive way and as a potential contributor to the diverse economic development strategy for Nunavut.

NTI's experience has been a little mixed. The land claims agreement had a fairly optimistic timeline for completing the work necessary to formalize parks in the North. The work since 1993 has not taken place as fast as NTI would have liked. The negotiations have been more complicated and more prolonged. That has been something of a disappointment.

I did bring with me today the document called "Taking Stock." This documents a summary of NTI's assessment of the land claims agreement to date. For those who have the time and the appetite, you may read the whole thing from cover to cover. Today I thought I would highlight the provisions that deal specifically with parks.

NTI has identified parks implementation as one of the key implementation problem areas since 1993. One reason this report was done is that the Nunavut land claims agreement has a mandatory review every five years. That was negotiated as part of the deal in 1993. Essentially, we do an audit every five years to determine how the agreement is doing. At the time, we thought that was a useful thing to negotiate. There was resistance to it. The first five-year review actually justifies in a significant way the sensible aspects of that part of the agreement.

I should like to bring two items to your attention. On pages 96-97, NTI tried to point out some of the process problems, just some the of the frustrations associated with trying to get these Inuit impact investment agreements negotiated to conclusion.

On page 97 you will see some of the points that NTI considers points of difficulty in trying to finalize these Inuit impact and benefit agreements.

As I mentioned, the negotiations were more drawn out and complex than one would have hoped. Some of these problems of process are probably ones others have mentioned in other contexts. It is difficult if you are the aboriginal party and have to negotiate with one department, which department is negotiating with many other departments who do not bother coming to the table. I am sure you have heard that. I am sure, in the case of Senator Watt, you are more than familiar with that problem.

There are problems of seniority with the people at the table in terms of having to go back up the ladder all the time to get decisions. There are some problems of communications.

There were a couple of false starts. There were a couple of documents that NTI thought were effectively concluded, good faith commitments made at table, and those understandings unravelled. As you can imagine, that caused a lot of heartache and heartburn on our side. There has been some frustration, and you will probably pick that tone up a little bit if you read more of this document. Those are the items that I draw to your attention in terms of some of the difficulties.

In the grey pages at the back of this document is a set of recommendations that NTI made in relation to the entirety of the implementation agreement, but there are some specific recommendations dealing with parks and conservation areas, and they start at page 188. I will not go over all of those because you will have a chance to look at them before you travel to Iqaluit. However, just to identify a couple of items, NTI spent a lot of money negotiating for much longer than it expected. There was some unhappiness about having to use the one-time compensation monies for what NTI interpreted as an overly drawn-out and overly complicated negotiating process.

Senator Watt: The Government of Canada is not footing the bill?

Mr. Merritt: The Government of Canada was paying its own expenses, and there was a global amount of $4 million, I believe, to implement everything. It was really NTI's call how much of those resources to concentrate on particular negotiating topics. Since 1993, some negotiating topics have gone well; others have been very, very slow. It is very much a mixed record.

However, I do not think that this is the most frustrating file. The most frustrating file would be the Nunavut Waters and Surface Rate Tribunal Act, which may come to you for study at some point.

The parks area has certainly gone more slowly than hoped and has generated more expense than hoped, and this is an unhappy surprise. NTI noted this in this report.

There has also been a little bit of a sense that it would have been preferable had government officials going into the negotiations taken a somewhat more expansive view of the possibilities opened up by the agreement. That is probably a theme you have heard from other aboriginal organizations in other contexts.

NTI sees the land claims agreement very much as a floor, as a set of basic commitments. NTI has also always taken the view that a land claims agreement has to be open to adaptation and evolution, and it would be unfortunate if these things become absolute handcuffs insofar as the land claims agreement attempts to set many directions in many areas. There are, by definition, areas that are left open to interpretation. The land claims agreement with Inuit impact and benefit agreements includes a schedule of negotiating topics. Of course, all of that is underpinned with the expectation that parties will, with good faith, imagination and creativity, do something useful with those topics.

NTI has had some concern that a land claims agreement that projects forward a continuing need for imagination can very quickly become just a kind of score card, and you do not always get the best result that way.

I will leave you with these recommendations, to look at as you have time, or perhaps you will want to follow up with questions.

In conclusion, four IIBAs for four parks have been negotiated. This has been slow, but there has been success. There have been three parks dealt with in Baffin and one in the Kivalik area. The IIBAs differ between the two regions because different folks were involved and Inuit living in those two regions had different priorities. These agreements are not just templates that you can photocopy and apply from one park to another, and you can appreciate why that would be the case given not only differences in the communities involved but also differences in terms of resources, wildlife, expected park use, and all kinds of other things. Each of these must be negotiated as a discrete item. NTI is pleased with that. We would not want you to read this review of the experience to date as being an unhappy experience top to bottom. From our point of view, there have been problems in terms of slowness and in terms of the agreements not being as ambitious as they could be, but we do have four parks covered by IIBAs. As well, NTI recognizes that many of these things are learn-as-you-go. That was true in the negotiation of the agreement itself and it is true of the follow-up. To some extent, these things take a long time because one must do things others have not done before. That is both the challenge and sometimes the risk; nonetheless, we do have these agreements in place and as an organization we are quite pleased with that.

Finally, we are aware that there could at some point be new legislation in relation to national parks. NTI is always very conscious of its responsibility to monitor new legislative developments. Any new legislation in relation to anything that affects our agreement is always checked very closely by the NTI team to ensure that it reflects and respects the agreement.

I make that point because even though everyone agrees with that idea in principle, we find that it is easy for officials in a large government with a variety of pressures and focal points to lose sight of that. We find that we often have to play catch-up by reminding people that this agreement is a bedrock constitutional commitment. Respect for it must be seen as a given and must be fully implemented in both a spirit and letter.

Senator Cochrane: Could you give us a little briefing on Nunavut political developments?

Mr. Merritt: Since April 1, 1999?

Senator Cochrane: Yes.

Mr. Merritt: I am probably not the right person to do that, but I could point out a few things. The creation of Nunavut itself is anchored in the land claim agreement, as you know. That was probably the breakthrough that allowed the agreement to be concluded in 1993. NTI is very proud of that and very jealous that the creation of Nunavut is a function of the efforts that were made at the land claims table over a number of years. The land claim agreement, of course, does not say very much about that government. There was a process from 1993 to 1999 to work out the design of that government. NTI participated fully in that. Despite the fact that there are obvious growing pains, I think people are very happy that the launch on April 1, 1999, was very successful.

We are tracking very closely the efforts of that government to recruit Inuit, for example, because one of the commitments made in the land claim agreement is that Inuit eventually will work in that government at levels commensurate with their proportion of the population.

That is taking some time. The goals that have been set have taken into account that you cannot train people overnight.

There was a bilateral accord negotiated and signed between Nunavut Tunngavik and the Government of Nunavut in October of last year. That was seen as a helpful document because it sets out some common objectives and priorities between Nunavut, as a public government, and NTI, representing the Inuit of that area. Special working groups have been set up to deals with government contracting policy and the development of a new education act.

It is a new world for NTI because prior to April 1, 1999, the assumption was always that the territorial government in Yellowknife would not be the long-term government, and NTI had different views about how the North should develop from the old GNWT in some respects. Therefore, NTI and the new government are still defining the relative distribution of responsibilities.There is a high level of commitment to making that relationship work closely, and there is a large amount of evidence that the relationship between the new government and NTI can be a very cooperative and productive one.

Senator Cochrane: Are the aboriginal people happy with the government of today?

Mr. Merritt: It could be presumptuous of me to offer a comment about that, given I am not an Inuk and I do not live in Nunavut. You will be going there and will get your own reading. I cannot point you to anything by way of objective polling that would be helpful in this circumstance. However, I am sure the committee will be getting a chance to ask that question.

Senator Andreychuk: My question deals with the fact that we will be studying the parks and making recommendations about aboriginal economic opportunities. Is there any thinking of tourism and employment opportunities that is different for the parks and for other opportunities? I am struck by the fact that there are some pristine areas that we wish to keep. We have heard this morning about keeping them as they are now, with no further depletions, et cetera, and the need to create economic activity, and around-the-world tourism is one of those that keeps all of us going.

There obviously are limited employment opportunities if you limit access to the parks. Has any of that discussion come into your planning? What are your views of the possibilities? Some say they want to increase the activity leading into the parks; others say that we must be very realistic, that if we wish to maintain our environment that is a very limited market.

Mr. Merritt: I believe people would see it as a balancing act, as I am sure you have heard from others. The land claims agreement strikes a balance between the need to protect fundamental environmental values and the need to protect the basic hunting economy, for example. At the same time, there is a recognition that other kinds of development are needed, given the economic distress of many people and the demographic pressures. Many young people come along and want things to do, and they look for wage employment as well as maintaining traditional skills. It is a balancing act. The margin of error in the North is always amplified either way, the fact that you are looking at small numbers of people but at large areas. Hence, the consequences of not getting it right tend to be more dramatic in an environment of that size.

When cruise ships first started to come in to some of the communities in the High Arctic, they were disembarking large numbers of people into the communities. This was too much of a good thing, because 500 or 600 people snapping pictures around a community can be disruptive if it is not organized properly.

I believe there is an underlying hospitality, a sense of wanting to share the culture and the landscape. However, there is a belief that it must be done with some forethought. Therefore, a balance must be struck.

There is also a concern that some communities will attract more than their fair share of tourists; in other words, there will be too many folks wanting to go to too few places while other communities get ignored altogether. Tourism is being heavily promoted by the Government of Nunavut as one of the economic engines of the North in the years to come. Although there is concern about doing it right, the overall hope is that tourism becomes a growing and reliable part of the economy.

Senator Andreychuk: In that sense, the Government of Nunavut can look at the mistakes we made. We have had parks -- and I know Banff's history well -- where right from day one the aim was to get the tourists in there. It would have been wonderful to have alternate recreation spots that could take advantage of the mountains, the climate and all those things, and not centre them in the park.

If you were to follow that, there would be a defined residential area, protected areas where certain recreational activities were permitted, not other industries, and then the rest of the park where its natural state would be maintained.

Is there any thought of alternative examples, or are you simply managing through?

Mr. Merritt: I am probably sliding into my own personal opinion here rather than any kind of NTI party line. One strategy may be to approach parks as enclaves of pristine activity and invest heavily in the infrastructure there, and then within the four corners of a park present a very attractive face to the world. The difficulty with it is that many people pick up their most memorable experiences on the way to and from the park. I believe there is concern in a place like Iqaluit that when you get off the plane it does not really shout out that it is different from anywhere else in the world just by your first impression. The housing does not look a whole lot different from the housing in many other parts of sub-Arctic Canada. People are conscious that the town planning has not been very stimulating.

There is a local beautification committee in Iqaluit now trying to overcome some of the problems. Tourists, when they come, not only want to experience natural landscape but also want some sense that they are visiting human settlements that are unique and appealing. How do you rewind the tape in terms of northern housing design over the last 30 years? People today, of course, live in communities that are the products of decisions made for a couple of generations by many engineers and guys in Treasury Board, so it is not like you can overcome that in a hurry.

It would be a mistake to view parks as kind of isolated experiences where we concentrate resources so that people who get into those parks have a good time. We would lose sight of the fact that, for most people living in the North, the real economic benefits are more likely felt by the time people spend going to and from there. Ecotourism, for example, has a lot of potential. People do not drop much cash in the communities. They want to go to a place where they can carry their tent around with them and live on their own to some extent. If that is the kind of experience tourists are looking for, then economic benefits must be derived from other things, whether it is from the sale of crafts or from people spending an extra day around Iqaluit to visit a museum, or whatever.

The land claim agreement states that the Inuit have joint title of all archaeological specimens. Museum people make big commitments to make every effort to house and display archaeological specimens of the north. There is nothing wrong in the hearts and minds of the people who work in museums, but there is the problem of money, of course. It costs a great deal of money to establish and run attractive facilities. Those are the kinds of things that are almost as important for investing in tourism as money invested in parks.

The Chairman: I will follow up a little more and get more information on your IIBA agreements. You said that you had two that were completed.

Mr. Merritt: Two are completed, dealing with four parks.

The Chairman: Are those for each park?

Mr. Merritt: One IIBA for the Baffin area deals with three parks and has been signed. One IIBA for a park in the Kivall region has been completed but not signed.

The Chairman: How many are left to be done?

Mr. Merritt: That depends on future intentions to create additional parks in the North, but those can cover the existing parks.

The Chairman: Are those agreements with the communities next to the park or are they with the government itself?

Mr. Merritt: They are with Parks Canada, and the regional Inuit associations. I would have to check, but it may be that Nunavut Tunngavik has signed on as an additional park.

The Chairman: Is it the regional area that carries the negotiations?

Mr. Merritt: Yes.

The Chairman: You said that tourism is the main thrust. Have they looked at alternative uses for the park, uses that would be of economic benefit?

Mr. Merritt: There is a big concern about hunting, of course. The Inuit rights to hunt exist independently of park status, so the Inuit rights to hunt on Crown land are virtually the same in parks as elsewhere. However, the agreement contemplates management plans, which would change that. Part of the appeal of parks is wildlife, and people come to see wildlife. Some people get upset if they see animals being turned into dinner. There is some willingness to negotiate those things in a pragmatic sense. I was not involved in the day-to-day negotiations of the agreement, so you will probably get a better reading on that from the actual negotiators, as to how sensitive some of these wildlife issues became with respect to what you can hunt and where you can hunt.

The Chairman: In respect of hunting in the parks, do those agreements set out that information? Do they just set out a provision that can then be developed?

Mr. Merritt: I will defer that to the people who could give you better information on that. The information that I give to you would probably be heavily qualified by the people talking to you later.

The Chairman: Thank you for presenting your information to us today.

The committee adjourned.