---

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

Issue 1 - Evidence, June 6, 2001

---

OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 6, 2001

The Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development in Relation to Northern National Parks met this day at 3:43 p.m. to review the opportunities to expand economic development, including tourism and employment, associated with national parks in Northern Canada, within the parameters of existing comprehensive land claims and associated agreements with Aboriginal peoples and in accordance with the principles of the National Parks Act.

Senator Ione Christensen (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: We will start, and we do a quorum for our purposes. We will welcome the delegation.

Did you have anything you wished to open with, or are you just here for questions?

Mr. Terry Henderson, Director General, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Given that a small delegation of Indian Affairs and Northern Development officials gave opening remarks when they appeared here on September 18, our preference would be to respond to questions. We would like to discuss with you the progress that is being made with respect to land claims and devolution, and economic development in the three territories in the North.

The Chairman: Perhaps we can touch on parks other than the northern ones that First Nations are looking at.

Senator Cochrane: Do you have any comments about proposed development projects in communities the near those northern parks. Did you consult with them regarding the boundaries of proposed new parks and how these boundaries might conflict with any developments that have been taking place or will take place in the future?

Mr. Henderson: With respect to communities that are covered by land claim agreements at present, the agreements do provide for Parks Canada to engage in negotiation of impact and benefit agreements. Clearly, as Parks Canada engages in those kinds of negotiations to establish certain arrangements, cooperative arrangements and and so forther with those Aboriginal beneficiary groups, we are involved. We are involved from the financial perspective and the mandating perspective as Parks Canada negotiates those parks, as well as the benefit agreements associated with them to ensure that the provisions of the land claim agreement with respect to certain principles would be fulfilled in the ultimate agreement that they might reach.

Senator Cochrane: Can you give us some specifics as to what you have done?

Mr. Henderson: Three parks were created in Nunavut in 1999, and there was an Inuit impact and benefit agreement signed with one of the regional Inuit associations, in the Baffin region with respect to those three parks. My department, while not engaged at the table in the negotiations, was engaged on the periphery with Parks in terms of the whole mandating process and the kinds of things they should be negotiating, to respect the terms of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, and the financing that would be necessary to bring that Inuit impact and benefits agreement into place. That is one example that is most familiar to me.

Mr. David Baker, Director General, Strategic Policy and Devolution Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: On the boundaries issue, we do have a mineral and energy assessment process, which I described last September, where we are closely involved with Parks Canada and Natural Resources Canada and the appropriate territorial government on assessing non-renewable resource potential in parks and making sure that information is fed into the decision-making process for decisions on creating a park and setting the boundaries for the parks.

Senator Cochrane: When we were in Nunavut we were talking to some people there. They had formed this understanding they would give a portion of their park back to the mining industry because within that park there were some valuable resources. Were you in on that?

Mr. Baker: Those items have been discussed in the committee. Ultimately, they are decisions for Parks Canada to make as to how existing interests in parks are to be dealt with, whether mining interests, for example, need to be negotiated prior to the creation of the park and can be dealt with within park guidelines. Parks Canada could provide those sorts of details.

Senator Cochrane: You have familiarity with the northern parks, our national parks, and how they are managed, particularly the cooperative management agreements that are to the land claims settlement. Is there anything you would do differently if the parks were run by your department?

Mr. Henderson: With all due respect, Senator, I could not speculate on what we might do differently.

Senator Cochrane: Would any of your colleagues have a comment on that? How would you do things differently than Parks Canada?

Mr. Allan Horner, Director General, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: I am not qualified to answer that question. My area of expertise is in the economic development areas.

Senator Cochrane: You have no comment at all?

Mr. Baker: If one considers government policy with respect to DIAND's role in the North, the idea of it taking on additional land and resource management responsibilities would be counter to the direction of government policy. Our department continues to have provincial-like responsibility for lands and resource management, but the policy of the government is to devolve those responsibilities to territorial governments and Aboriginal governments.

The second market, which is emerging in the Eastern Arctic, is the type that will occur, for example, at Sirmilik and Pond Inlet, that offer tour boats, historic sites and community programming. These people are not wilderness people. They do not want to spend too much time too far away from that boat. They do want to spend some time in that community. Thus, the interpretation and education programs that occur in those communities will be important, along with the cultural and craft elements of those communities. They help to sustain long-term interest in those communities.

If I were in charge of marketing, I would be dealing with all three of them. The third element is the specialized tours. These tours are called "learning travel," and involve people who have money and time and who want to learn. They come for learning experiences. In such cases, they would want to meet and spend some time with Inuit people. They would want to learn about Inuit archaeology, history, crafts, history, arts and so on. That is a growing element of the business and would be a good area for focus.

The major group that is running that type of the tour in North America is the Smithsonian Institute in Washington.

Senator Cochrane: My last question is in regard to Tuktut Nogait National Park. The allocation for this project was $2.3 million. However, they could only account for $2 million. What happened to the other $300,000?

We are in the process of getting out of these areas of business. We are not looking for new areas of business to get into.

During our discussions, we discussed Tuktut Nogait National Park and the community of Paulatuk in the Northwest Territories park officials. I was interested to find that a substantial amount of parks agency funding was used in the town of Paulatuk itself. It was used for cleaning up the town's dump and the watershed. Approximately $1 million was used for the construction of a community complex and hotel. Would the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have been able to fund those projects if Parks Canada had not done so? They supposedly were given $3.2 million, but only 3 million was accountable. Would the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs have been able to fund such a project?

Mr. Henderson: I am not sure I can answer that question categorically. My domain is the implementation of land claim agreements. I do not believe that that kind of a funding relationship would be necessitated by the land claim agreement, the Inuvialuit final agreement in this case. I dare say we probably would not get involved unless it were from a policy perspective and an interest that would fit in.

Mr. Baker: We might have potential involvement on the economic development side in terms of development projects, which is a major focus of our minister. Perhaps Mr. Horner would like to speak about the economics program.

Senator Cochrane: This is for economic development.

Mr. Horner: We have an economic development program entitled "The Opportunity Development Fund." A First Nation or Inuit organization conceives of a business proposal - a viable business proposal - and submits this to the department. Our regional project review committee examines it. These project review committees comprise representatives from various government departments - federal and provincial or territorial - including DIAND. Frequently a First Nations or Inuit organization is also represented.

This committee assesses whether the project is viable and if it meets the department's criteria for economic development programs. The committee makes a recommendation to the department. Based on that recommendation, the department then will consider the approval of that project. Approval can be made at the regional level for projects up to $100,000. For projects more than $100,000, the deliberations are made at the national headquarters. The project to which you referred would have required headquarters' approval.

We are pleased to this type of project because we believe that tourism represents an area of opportunity for many First National and Inuit communities. Out of the $6.5 million that this department spent on tourism and trade related economic development programs last year, $1.1 million went to projects in the north. The Paulatuk project would have been contained in that. With regard to all types of economic development on a national scale, we spent $70 million of which $10.7 million went to northern projects.

The type of tourism projects we supported in the past year ranged from feasibility studies and market studies related to tourism, hotel construction, lodge development, heritage centres, arts and crafts, outfitting and travel infrastructure. We are very much dependent on viable projects coming to us, and then we look to see how we can best support those projects.

In most instances, these projects require contributions from the First Nation and Inuit in order to participate. As well, we encourage them to bring in other partners. In the case of the Paulatuk situation, they brought on the Federal Business Development Bank and ABC, or Aboriginal Business Canada. The Inuit organizations were also able to contribute funding toward this project. We take our funding, match it with Inuit organizations' and First Nations funding, and then use that to lever additional capital. We were able to support a $4 million project with a contribution of a $350 thousand.

It is not just about jobs. In this case, the number of jobs produced by this particular project was not all that great. The potential here is around the secondary opportunities that will come out of having a hotel that will attract tourists and then allow for other type of activities related to outfitting and tourism activities that will promote industry in the area.

Senator Cochrane: It was my understanding the 2.3 million for the Paulatuk complex came only from Parks Canada.

The Chairman: No, it was a joint funding.

Groups from Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have lamented the difficulty in finding start-up capital for tourism-related businesses - financing, equipment, and things like that - for outfitters because of the high cost equipment and having to compete with operators from southern areas. These southern operators have a worldwide clientele and they work in the north in the summer and move south in the winter so they have a year-round operation.

Most of the operators that would be interested in the north would be looking at the short northern season and are not that diversified. They were saying that the start-up costs for, say, equipment required for a white-water rafting business, were very high and it was difficult to find capital.

What are your comments on that? Is that funding available? How do they access it? I know through the land claims they do have economic funding that is part of the land claims settlement, but what would your comments be on that?

Mr. Henderson: Under the land claim agreements you mentioned, there are sizeable capital transfer payments made that generally go into trusts for the benefit of all of the beneficiaries. There are also general economic provisions and government contracting provisions within those land claim agreements, which do not provide a right of first refusal to government contracts per se. However, they do give a leg up to the beneficiary groups and their businesses and so forth with respect to government contracting by way of guaranteed notification and certain elements built into the bid criteria and this kind of thing.

With respect to special capital, maybe that would move over to the economic development domain.

Mr. Horner: Could I comment on the general issue that you are raising? In 1996, Industry Canada prepared a report on the tourism industry, in which they identified a number of challenges. One of the challenges relating to Aboriginal opportunities was the limited infrastructure in many First Nations and Inuit communities. There were other challenges as well.

You may want to have discussions with Aboriginal Tourism Team Canada, or ATTC, regarding the work they are doing to address these particular challenges. We sit on the committee that works with ATTC. We have tried to find opportunities to work with other partners to identify projects that will move forward on some of these challenges. For instance, we are currently investigating, a project, in conjunction with ATTC, to set up a pilot project to identify how to raise awareness of tourism business opportunities within the community.

ATTC has set up regional organizations that are focussed on developing regional tourism strategies. I am certain they could provide you with more details on the work they are doing in the North.

As Mr. Henderson was saying, we have economic development programs that provide matching funds. We are able to partner with First Nations and Inuit organizations to assist them meet some of those challenges.

I should also note that Industry Canada has the Aboriginal Business Canada Program. Tourism is one of their four funding priorities. You might want to pursue them for information on their efforts and programs.

Mr. Baker: With regard to supporting such projects for northerners in general, unfortunately we have not had funds available since the last round of economic development agreements expired in 1996. Our minister remains committed to working with his colleagues to identify funding to enable us to resume those sorts of programs.

The Chairman: You are speaking on the territorial government side.

Mr. Baker: The economic development agreements were joint: federal-territorial. All northerners would be eligible.

The Chairman: They terminated in 1995 and we have not had one since, specifically for First Nations and Inuit persons. That is what we are looking at now. Certainly, if the territorial governments get agreements and funding, they could tie into that as well - specifically from the department to the First Nations involved in the different parks we are trying to centre on at this point.

I presume the funding that was made available from the department for the Paulatuk undertaking would be available in other areas if a similar project put together.

Mr. Horner: We do not have a quota. We are looking at whether there is a viable business project, and if so, we determine whether we have funds to support it. As the year goes on, the level of available funding diminishes. If a viable candidate has been recommended by the regional project review committee and it meets the criteria of our program, assuming there is enough funding available, we will support a such a project.

The Chairman: One of the other things we heard about was getting the youth involved through training and education. Does your department have any cooperative undertakings with Parks Canada in the area of youth training and development of programs with the other department in Parks Canada?

Mr. Horner: I am not familiar with one like that. Maybe Parks might be, and I could ask when we get back. I am not aware of a specific undertaking.

The Chairman: What about funding of general programs for training?

Mr. Horner: HRDC has the prime mandate within the federal government to provide funding for training, and as such, our programs are largely related to elementary and secondary students and post-secondary training. We do have programs for students in the elementary and secondary system that are focussed on encouraging them to stay in school, to participate in cooperative education programs, and to help prepare them for the transition from school to work. Our programming is not directed towards providing training directly for jobs per se.

Job training would fall under Human Resources Development Canada's direct mandate. That department provides funding to Aboriginal organizations for such training programs. Those organizations are located in the regions and they are best positioned to decide which among the competing training proposals they can fund. However, HRDC would be in a better position to explain more fully their programming.

Senator Cochrane: Let me ask you about your co-op program. Is that not preparing the young kids for the workforce?

Mr. Horner: In the sense of moving from high school to the work environment, yes.

Senator Cochrane: What you are doing in the co-op program is putting them with, for example, a business enterprise, and you are training them to be one of those people?

Mr. Horner: I believe that is the way it works.

Senator Cochrane: You have funding for that.

Mr. Horner: Yes, but I am not certain of the amount. It is not my area, but I am aware of that program. It is within the department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

Senator Cochrane: Do you have any idea as to how much the people have taken advantage of that?

Mr. Horner: We have statistics. I do not have them at hand. I would be prepared to share that with the committee. We could do that fairly quickly.

Senator Cochrane: How many northern communities have taken advantage of this?

Mr. Horner: I do not work in the area responsible for education, but I have access to that information and will provide it to you.

Senator Cochrane: I would like to have that. I would like to know about the children.

Mr. Horner: We would be pleased to do so.

The Chairman: What percentage of the economic funding that we were talking about earlier would go to the North above 60?

Mr. Horner: Approximately $10 million out of $70 million went last year to the North. Since last year, an additional $2 million, approximately, has gone to the North.

The Chairman: Do you know what sorts of projects we are looking at?

Mr. Horner: Tourism is one candidate. A fair number of activities have been promoted in terms of oil and gas activity. As you can appreciate, there is much focus by Aboriginal groups in that area and we expect that this will continue. I can share some press releases that were issued by the department. I have them in both French and English.

These releases identify a number of smaller studies that we have funded that will allow First Nations to get ready for the opportunities around oil and gas. We have also supported some major business projects - in particular two oil rigs - which are being used in partnership with a private firm to support drilling activity up in the North. We find that particularly important because it allows First Nations to get involved in the opportunities that are right at hand. These are the kinds of opportunities that we seek.

Senator Cochrane: To whom did the funding go?

Mr. Horner: If I remember correctly, it is going to support Akita Equtak Drilling Ltd., which is a company jointly owned with the Inuvialuit Development Corporation. Akita Equtak Drilling Ltd. is a private firm.

They are using the funds to operate these drilling rigs and to provide camp services to Petro-Canada and Chevron Canada Resources. You can see the type of exciting opportunities that are there with our support. In this case, the total project is in the order of $33 million, and DIAND's contribution is in the order of $4.2 million.

Significant leverage has been had for a reasonable sum of money to enable First Nations and Inuit organizations to participate directly in local opportunities. In our view, resource-based opportunities - be they tourism, oil and gas or mining opportunities - provide a major opportunity. All these represent the types of things that we would expect First Nations to be interested in. We are trying to support them in getting there.

Senator Cochrane: As you know, these are the northern parks. They are very difficult to access. Tourism is great, but they do not see a lot of tourists. One of the parks saw 2,000 tourists, while another saw only seven. I am not saying that tourism is not important, because it is.

However, it does not do justice to deal mainly with tourism. Nor is it just that DIAND only look at tourism while there is development there. The Mackenzie Delta will make a big difference to these northern communities.

Many - probably most - of the development projects in the North, particularly mining and oil and gas, necessitate the construction of some kind of road access to the sites. Are there opportunities for the parks agency to take advantage of these developments by situating parks adjacent to the access roads that are being built?

Mr. Horner: I would not be able to comment on the parks agency's view of that. When there is resource development, a road has to be built. A First Nations or Inuit community is likely to benefit from the construction of that road. DIAND may look to see how we could participate, but we would have to see whether it was consistent with our authorities and examine the level of contribution we would be expected to make.

We would look to bring in as many partners as possible to share that success. Clearly, our level of contribution would have a strong bearing on the degree to which we saw benefits for the First Nation or Inuit community. It would not make sense for us to put in 50 per cent of the cost if the community could not generate benefits that would come even close to that. Then, in effect, we would be subsidizing private industry, which is not our intent.

Senator Cochrane: None of us intend to do that. However, the communities will definitely benefit from these developments. We saw many things happen in the Northwest Territories while we were there. We saw a rental agency that brought in 50 new trucks just for rentals.

Mr. Horner: As I hear the questions being put to me, parks activity can be about road access. It can also be about business opportunities related to the tourism aspect.

However, the parks activities in themselves have other aspects which, from an economic development point of view, can have potential benefits for First Nation or Inuit communities. That could include the level of participation by Aboriginals being employed within the parks system. That is something that DIAND is interested in seeing expanded, not necessarily with regard to parks, but within all types of employers within Canadian society.

To the extent that we can increase Aboriginal representation within the parks system, as we would like in other areas, that is an opportunity that can benefit First Nation communities.

In addition, parks as a consumer of goods in operating the park could look potentially at what opportunities - and I am sure they have already factored this into their work - are there for Aboriginal organizations to be the supplier of the goods to the parks system. When we look at what opportunities exist to the benefit to First Nation and Inuit communities, we try to look at all aspects and not take just a narrow focus.

The Chairman: Tourism is limited and probably will be for the foreseeable future. At the same time, you want to try to find as many opportunities as possible to take advantage of the parks being there. What are all of the ramifications and opportunities that exist? They are limited.

It appears when persons do become involved in upgrading programs to meet qualifications at the management level, there are so many demands out there for people at that level that they are snapped up by the departments or other organizations. That is because their expertise is needed by the First Nation organizations themselves for their own development and by the territorial government departments that are demanding all of this expertise. The people who get the education are in such great demand that they go to the highest bidder. It is a real problem because there is a limited number of persons with that sort of expertise.

Mr. Henderson: The pool of skilled labour force is limited.

The Chairman: We see all these agreements that deal with the northern parks. Do you see these sort of agreements happening and progressing down into the southern parks? I refer to the negotiated agreements with First Nations that include cooperative agreements with parks in the south? There is one in the Queen Charlottes. What about other parks, such as Banff?

Mr. Henderson: I cannot speak to any in particular. However, as we negotiate land claim agreements, parks and heritage are always elements that can be mandated for and included in the land claim settlements.

The Chairman: Would you see this as a growing phenomenon? It is certainly unique to the North, but would you see that as growing phenomenon as we develop more agreements?

Mr. Henderson: In cases where there are Aboriginal communities that have legitimate land claims are into negotiation and they are bordering on an existing national park or a potential national park, the land claim agreement becomes and enabler for the community to participate in the benefits that are likely to be generated by the park.

Senator Cochrane: Tell me about your review committee. You have a review committee within each area up in the North, do you?

Mr. Horner: Let me be clear that the project review committees are in relation to several of our economic development programs. We are talking strictly in regard to our economic development programs.

For our national policies, we would like to see regional project review committees, or PRCs, established in each region. In "Gathering Strength," the federal government`s action plan for Aboriginal people, there was a commitment to work in partnership with Aboriginal people to help build sustainable communities. We see these committees as one of the underpinnings to acting out that working in partnership.

Our general practice is that we would like to see them in every part of the country. They are now in every part of the country, except one - the Northwest Territories - and that community is currently under development and in discussion with their First Nation organizations. We do have one operating at present in Nunavut and in the Yukon Territory.

I can explain how the membership is constituted using the example the Yukon Territory. In the Yukon, the PRC includes regional DIAND staff, Aboriginal Business Canada, the Southern Tutchone Tribal Council, the Federal Business Development Bank, the Northern Tutchone Tribal Council and individual First Nations participants.

Senator Cochrane: If a group in the Yukon feels they have a viable operation, would they present to this review committee?

Mr. Horner: First, they would go to their local community economic development organization. That community economic development organization would review the proposal and submit it to the department. The department would then feed the proposal to the regional project review committee. The PRC would assess the project and whether they thought it was suitable in terms of the department's funding and project criteria. If the project is within delegated authority of the region, it would be approved at the regional level. Then the money would flow to the recipient.

Senator Cochrane: I can understand why the people in the north were complaining that it takes so long for the department of Indian and Northern Affairs to come across with funding and approval and all these things. They have been saying that it is difficult to get through the bureaucracy. By the time the bureaucracy comes forward with this, it is almost too late.

The Chairman: Were those not part of the land claim agreements?

Mr. Henderson: No.

Mr. Horner: Frequently an issue is whether the recipient has prepared an adequate business plan. If the business plan is not complete or does not provide all the essential information, it is difficult for the organization to deal with it. There is then a "to'ing and fro'ing" between the parties to try to deal with those issues.

In addition, it is safe to say that, given the HRDC experience, the federal government must ensure appropriate accountability and scrutiny of the funds that it is providing to funding recipients. In that case, when we are funding a business development proposal, it is essential that we have some level of comfort that there has been an independent assessment as to whether the project will be viable. If it is a big project - and we consider over $100,000 a big project - then it is required to come to headquarters for review. We do not repeat all the steps that have been taken to that point, but we do assure that the process has been followed and respected and that we can live with the decision to fund that particular project. We have an obligation to the public to ensure that the money is being well spent.

In addition, when we provide funding for First Nations communities, it is important that we have success stories. We need success stories to show that this money is making a difference. All these things play into the need for processes and taking the necessary time to make the funding decision.

Senator Cochrane: I just wanted you to be aware that we have heard those complaints. When I hear them so often, it makes me wonder. I do not have to tell you that sometimes bureaucracy does get hung up.

The Chairman: I do not think that is specific to First Nations. The bureaucratic system plagues everyone who must deal with it.

Do you want northern parks included in your department?

Mr. Henderson: I have no comment in that regard.

The Chairman: Parks Canada fell under Indian and Northern Affairs at one time; when was that?

Mr. Henderson: That was certainly the case in the late 1970s. It may have been in the early 1980s when that changed.

I will take the opportunity to share with you something that is hot off the press. You may have seen the press release on this that came out yesterday. We have annual reports and five-year review reports on the implementation of land claim agreements. This one was issued through a joint press release yesterday and speaks to the implementation of the Yukon umbrella final agreement and the first four Yukon First Nation final agreements.

The report speaks to a number of successes and challenges that the parties have jointly faced in implementing the land claim agreement. It also speaks volumes to the relationships that have been established in implementing the land claim agreement and the maturity and professionalism by which the parties work together.

There are seven signatories to this, including representatives from the four Yukon First Nations - the "first four," as we call them - and the Council for Yukon First Nations, the Yukon Territorial Government and the Government of Canada. It is a good news story and the press release speaks to the success of implementing these land claim agreements.

The Chairman: The Champagne and Aishihik First Nations have appeared before us. I guess they were the first signatories to that.

Thank you. This has been an interesting exercise. We have learned a great deal and heard from many northerners about some of their problems, frustrations and success stories.

Our next witness is Mr. Lee from the Parks Canada Agency.

Thank you for coming, Mr. Lee. I would also like to thank you and your officials for the assistance that they gave us during our trip. Please proceed with your statement.

Mr. Tom Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency: Thank you for the invitation to appear before you. I am glad that my staff was able to serve you. I have followed your work by reviewing the submissions you have received. I have some of my own observations from my experience and would like to offer you some of those.

I would like to open by tabling two documents, which have become available since the last time you met formally with us. You may find these interesting. One is a newsletter called "First Peoples Focus," which reports on what we are doing across Canada. I was interested in your previous comments regarding whether some ideas from the North will migrate south. I think they will migrate both ways. This newsletter informs on things that are happening in both the northern and southern parts of our country. The second is our document entitled "National Historic Sites of Canada."

With regard to the Aboriginal front, I have established a small secretariat of Aboriginal people who report directly to me. These people are my eyes and ears across Canada. They are connected with about 40 other people across Canada. We have achieved a clear focus on five areas relating Aboriginal people. One is community relations and relationship building. The second is providing opportunities for Aboriginal people to tell their stories throughout the National Parks and Historic Sites system - we call it interpretation education. The third area is our own Aboriginal employment; the fourth is economic partnership opportunities; and the fifth focusses on new parks and sites. You will see examples of those types of things in that document.

I know that your focus has been on national parks in the North. The National Historic Site system has been growing across Canada, including in the North. Aboriginal people have been deeply involved in the development of historic site system. One of the central initiatives with regard to historical and cultural commemoration is the focus on major Aboriginal initiatives in Northern Canada.

With respect to the focus of the committee, I would like to comment on two general matters and then on five specific items, which will obviously be of interest to you and may assist the committee or stimulate discussion.

The first general matter is that of community relations. I am generally satisfied with the direction in which Parks Canada is heading in this area. I have watched the situation in the North. I have talked to many of the Inuit people with whom we work, as well as to southern native bands, about this.

While there are areas in which Parks Canada can improve, we are generally heading in the right direction. I am very sensitive about this matter. I always watch out for two things. One is any tendency of my staff to use the legislative rule book as a lever or a hammer. That is not proper behaviour in a partnership. We do not want to work that way.

The second thing that I watch out for is full respect for the process of consultation and decision-making that is encompassed in our relationship so that we do not arbitrarily take decisions, but rather use a consensus approach.

The second general matter on which I would like to comment is decision-making and the structure of Parks Canada. We have an extremely decentralized structure. We delegate to the fullest extent possible. The expectation with these northern parks is that decisions will be made at the local level. My experience with northern parks has been exactly that with the exception of the misunderstanding that developed with regard to the Tuktut Nogait agreement. That is the only item that has touched my desk for decision-making on any of the Arctic parks since 1993.

All decisions are being made in a consensus fashion with local people and I have not had to intervene or overrule on anything. That is the way we operate and I think it is working.

With regard to tourism in the northern parks, there are five important items necessary to moving ahead. First, the management plans for the national parks drives the nature of development and tourism opportunities. Those management plans are developed by the local management boards and are recommended to the minister. There is an opportunity here for Parks Canada and the management boards to be much clearer on their tourism and user objectives. It is fair to say that the management plans to date are sometimes driven out of mandate. If I took a park like Ivvavik, where the claim settlement clearly states this has been managed for wilderness purposes and is to protect the natural resources and particularly the wildlife, there has been a strong focus in the management plans for that purpose and that is fine. The boards chose to take that focus.

If they want to move ahead on tourism, we must collectively make clear statements in the management plans. The management plan for Banff includes a clear statement on tourism, direction and expectations. Generally, statements that we have from the northern parks have not contained that emphasis. The management plan is essential and it is the responsibility of the local board to propose those.

The second essential element rests the human resource infrastructure. I followed your questioning with DIAND on this matter. There are two aspects to this, the Parks Canada side and the private-sector side.

There is terrific competition for the trained and available resources at all levels. The current minister for sustainable development in Nunavut is a former park warden with Parks Canada. That is an illustration of the type of demand.

We can and have taken initiatives in this respect. We need to do better. In particular, we need to focus beyond Parks Canada and collectively find a way to develop the people in the private sector who can act as the guides and the hosts for not just the visitors to the park, but for tourism as a whole. I do not see a satisfactory initiative in that regard.

The third essential aspect is the tourism infrastructure in regard to both the facilities in the park and facilities in adjacent communities. Again, while some progress has been made, for example, the hotel and visitors centre joint effort in Paulatuk is a good example of infrastructure. There is the need for more of that. There is the need to ensure that if we are to have visitors to these parks, that the park infrastructure itself is satisfactory.

The fourth essential aspect is tourism promotion, which logically occurs after you have those first three elements in place. One of the challenges that we face is to develop a sensitivity that we must deliver on our promotion and marketing efforts. The last thing we would want is to have visitors arrive to have the experience of inadequate services and inadequate facilities. We need to collectively find a comfort zone so that that does not happen.

Parks Canada invested $400,000 into the last World Fair in Germany and the feature hall of the Canadian pavilion was the Arctic parks. Canada was the most popular pavilion at the world's fair. However, while we had some success, we recognized that we were not ready for that big an effort yet. If people started to arrive in large numbers, neither the communities nor this agency would be in a position to handle them.

My fifth point is that to move ahead, there must be some either prioritizing or additional investment. The representatives from DIAND mentioned that under their economic development program, they are putting $1.2 million into the tourism infrastructure. That is not very much. That is not enough to make a difference over the next five years. More resources are required. We must find a way to get a more focussed investment in human resources.

Parks Canada has, working with local people, managed to make progress in certain places. However, the source of funds there is the HRDC and the current system of the local communities must identify this as their priority. By the time local communities get through all their other community priorities, the tourism, training and development does not come out very high on some of those lists.

This is not peculiar to the North. We had a national round table on Aboriginal tourism with Aboriginal people from across Canada about three weeks ago. I raised this item with the heads of those organization, chiefs and so on. They identified that they had this problem. They recognized that there was a need for more priority on this. When it came to their communities, by the time they got through their local priorities, quite often the tourism element got the short stroke.

There is no top-down. In HRDC, nothing says that we will allocate $10 million across Canada to Aboriginal tourism training. It does not work that way. It must come from the bottom up. I do not know what the answer is. I am raising this point to illustrate the way things are operating at this time.

I do not think it will require huge amounts of investment to move ahead with heritage tourism in the Arctic parks. If $2 million to $3 million a year were available for human resource training, for private sector support in infrastructure, perhaps for more support to ensure the park infrastructure is ready, I suspect that would be sufficient. This is not a $100 million problem.

I will close there. I hope I have given you an overview, and I will answer your questions.

Senator Sibbeston: I have not quite decided whether I should be bold and frank with you and just tell you off the bat, Mr. Lee that as far as the North, I think Parks Canada is doing it all wrong. I do not know whether there is any value in me taking that approach. You are doing some positive things, but you need to take some drastic measures and take a different approach.

The trips into the three territories to see the parks were tremendously helpful in gaining an understanding of what is going on up there. Canada's northern parks are huge and inaccessible. It is costly for people to go there.

In some respects, we are just talking academics. One of the parks in northern Yukon had six or eight visitors last summer. In some of the northern parks in Ellesmere, I suspect there is probably just a handful of visitors. That is the reality in most of the parks - particularly those that are newly developed. We have vast expanses of land that are beautiful but no one is going there.

Therefore, all the things that Parks Canada is doing are academic. You are going through the motions of hiring people and having wardens go over the lands but there are no visitors. It is like making a meal yet no one ever comes to eat it.

I can boldly say, too, that the impression we get from people we have heard is that Parks Canada is imbued with the southern approach of conservation and certain mentalities and approaches that are neither appropriate nor applicable in the North.

Through the land claims processes, people have expectations with respect to jobs and economic activity. However, because of your southern imbued approaches and mentality it will be difficult for Aboriginal people to benefit from the provisions of the claims that contain aspects concerning training and economic opportunity.

Perhaps I can shock you into the mentality of believing that for the north, you need to take a totally different approach than what you are doing with the parks. I do not know whether it is technically possible to have parks and a different approach. I do not know whether you can ever change Parks Canada from believing that parks are areas that are set aside to be conserved and ecologically protected forever.

In the realm of possibilities, I do not know whether the parks agency can ever manage northern parks differently than you do in the south. I do not know whether you can ever succeed in satisfying the peoples of the north. I suppose it is a challenge.

The fact that you have asked senators to go to the north to take a look indicates to me that there is some openness to hearing what we have to say and, eventually, to deal with our recommendations. I think that is the general situation. You mean well, but the reality is that northern people see parks differently. The land is there. There is no one stampeding up north. There is no one going to the country and wrecking anything. The land will be maintained as it is.

Because of your views with respect to development - you are against infrastructure and development in the parks - you really do hinder people. We have heard in places like Inuvik and other parts in the north where your policies do not permit Aboriginal peoples to develop and provide for a business opportunity because of your restrictive policies of not allowing any infrastructure development in the parks. That in itself hinders development.

It has been said in places like Iqaluit that parks are more than just land. They are also about people. People go into parks and all they see is land, but there are no Inuit or Dene. There is not a concept of trying to develop infrastructure or programs whereby Aboriginal peoples can be on the land, where people can come into the northern parks to see the land and the ways in which people live, harvest, hunt or survive. There is not that.

If you want Aboriginal peoples to benefit from northern parks, you will have to open up. You have to have a different mindset. You have to have a northern approach that is completely different from the way that parks operate in the south.

I am interested in knowing if that is possible. As a parks person, are you imbued with a parks approach whereby regardless of what people in the north say and in spite of what people like us say after having been there, can there be development? Can you have Aboriginal people participating in business opportunities? Can they set up infrastructure and camps where they can show their way of life? Are those things possible or, because they are parks, is it that these sorts of things can never be allowed?

Mr. Lee: I appreciate what you have said. Believe me, be as frank and honest with me as you can because I do not like it any other way.

The answer is yes. I think I was open in my opening remarks. Obviously, I am proud of Parks Canada. I am not here to speak against it.

We have to approach the north in a different way. I do not mean to say that we have to have a different attitude. As long as I am head of this organization, I am committed to help them make that happen.

Let us talk about the importation of southern policies. There is not anything in our legislation or in our policies that would prevent us from moving in the direction you suggest. I talked about some of the national initiatives. You mentioned the opportunity to see Aboriginal people on the land doing their traditional things, and so on. I agree with you. We call it programming, education, and interpretation.

Across Canada, we are moving in that direction. We need to find a way to bring together the local people so that they are ready to take leadership initiatives. We can accommodate them.

How can we ensure that the things that we are doing in those parks are what the local people want? We need to trust our management boards. The Wildlife Management Advisory Committee is our "parks management board." They recommend directions in their plan. They can tell us, "We would like to have in the following parts of the park programming of the following nature." That can happen.

We can take these steps. We have not taken them yet, and I assure you we would never do it without the support of the local people.

When I was in Pond Inlet last summer when we signed a new park agreement and I had some discussions with local people. I raised the question, "Is there a need in this park, or would it help if we put in place a compulsory guide system in this park? $You cannot enter this park on your own. It is too dangerous. You need to have a guide.' Could we do that and would it be the right thing to do?" The answer is that we could do it. As to whether it would be the right thing to do, that is the type of the discussion we need to have

You could look at a park like Aulavik and just deal with the same problem and say that probably a very few people reach there. Very few people are likely to visit the park community. If they are coming from the south, they are likely to charter all the way in. In fact, the community would be a mess.

What services could local people provide in the park that would give them employment opportunities and allow them to present their culture? We are open, senator, to those ideas. If you said, "I want to build a road in the park," you would probably have problems with me, but that is a different thing.

Senator Sibbeston: That is the sort of thing I am talking about. We know that there is a lot emphasis on usual park type stuff. You have the mandate to manage the park. You begin training people. You have wardens and people that go in the park. I find it funny that your people are going through park but no one else is.

It is a mindset. You have the task of operating and managing a park, so you are setting up all the people that will be the enforcers of the law to be sure that nothing happens ecologically. To me, that is academic. The land is so large. No one is going to go there and wreck the lands or disturb anything to the detriment of the park.

Instead of going through the process of training people as wardens, why not look at it in realistic terms. If the Aboriginal people in the area are ever to benefit from the park, how would they do that? What infrastructure, what do they need so that some day plane-loads of people will go there and need places to sleep or stay and modes of travel? It is a completely different approach. Instead of a maintaining a parks mentality, get a businessman in there to think about business opportunity and jobs as the objective.

You do not need any guides because nobody comes around. You have wasted 30 or $40,000 thousand. Use that money to build float docks, tent frames, infrastructure, so that some day - 10 years from now - you might have people beginning to come. Give the regional Aboriginal organizations an opportunity to set up business plans where they can prepare themselves and prepare for the day when there will be tourists and they can promote those business opportunities. It is taking a whole different approach.

Once you are imbued with park approach and modus of operating, can you ever change to take this kind of totally different attitude of a park, looking at it in terms of business opportunities? Only the very rich come. Who can afford to go to these parks where it costs thousands of dollars?

Mr. Lee: I have tried to answer this question, and I understand the issue that you are raising. Will Parks Canada ever move out of a protective mentality? We will continue to protect the resources in the park. That is part of the mandate. That does not mean -

Senator Sibbeston: You do not have to. It is protected by the fact that no one is there. You might be doing more damage by having your park trainees go through the park every summer. I find it incredible that you would have people surveying the boundaries, flying in helicopters and planes to survey the park, as if there is going to be an invasion or intrusion. That is so unrealistic.

You are into the normal park practices that work in the south and maybe are necessary in the south because you have the population, and you are adapting them to the north. It is foolhardy. It is not believable or practical. It seems like a big waste of money and human energy.

Mr. Lee: I want to move on to the other thing. We have a job to do. I understand what you are saying. I believe, and this is the information I have from the boards themselves, that they are pleased with the work we are doing on the resource side. The data that we provide with regard to wildlife is an important contribution to their decision-making. That is fair enough.

The question is how can we move ahead on the tourism welcoming side, and I am saying that we can. There are areas where there is no conflict with Parks Canada. There is not going to be a southern policy imposition to prevent us from moving ahead. The management boards do the plans for the sites, and some of them are being prepared now. The Champagne and Aishihik First Nations are preparing a management plan for Kluane for recommendation to the minister. In that plan, they have to say what they want to do. I am not going to sit in Ottawa and tell them what I think they should do. They will describe what they want to do and what kind of programs they want to see. I will not go ahead on my own without them. That is the basic thing. We have to start there.

What role can Parks Canada play? I can insist that there be something in the management plan. If the management board sent me a plan that did not contain something, I would feel comfortable sending it back suggesting that they missed something. They would have to provide the necessary detail to move ahead.

As I say, all the other management plans in southern Canada now have a section on tourism. We changed this procedure within the last year. I think that we can do it. We are willing to do it.

The Chairman: There are concerns in this discussion. One is the idea of a "cooperative" agreement as opposed to a "co-agreement." It seems that while the negotiators have fully understood what a cooperative agreement was, most of the beneficiaries in the area saw it as a co-agreement. This came out clearly in Inuvik, where they said, "Our people are saying we negotiated a land claims agreement. We have all this land, and then we turned around and gave a piece back to the government because we wanted it to be part of a park. Now we cannot go into it because it falls under Park Canada rules. We thought it was a partnership or co-agreement where we would be equal partners in developing that." It is not. It is cooperative, which is different from co-management.

The semantics have caused a problem. Those people feel they have given away a piece of land they negotiated hard to get, and now the minister has the final say and the ability to tell them what they can and can not do.

The other thing is that going into agreements with First Nations presents a new regime for Parks Canada as well. It is something you have not done anywhere else - so it is a learning process. We have to find a way to have these kinds of parks and Parks Canada would have to have special policies that will apply to those parks.

Senator Cochrane: I do not want to continue on this issue, but I have to make the same statement that Senator Sibbeston did.

Coming from the North and hearing all the people that we have heard from, I am aware of their concern with the policies that are developed with southern parks in mind. This is one of the main issues that they talked about extensively.

I am concerned because the minister only recently reaffirmed the statement that environmental consideration should be foremost. My colleague just said to you that we are not concerned about environmental issues because we do not get the same number of tourists that Banff does. People from the North have been telling us this. To accommodate the interests and concerns of the people and communities in the North, do you think northern national parks might be better served if they were operated by a separate agency? Or, perhaps an independent branch in your agency that would be free to adopt its own policies rather than being directed by the policies applied to the southern parks?

Mr. Lee: I have not been able to find what specific southern policy is working against the parks in the North. If the committee has knowledge of this, I should like to know it.

Senator Sibbeston: Conservation and regulation. You are doing it wrong because you are adopting a template that applies to the South. You are starting to manage some parks and you are training park wardens and other personnel to enforce regulations in the parks. However, no one comes to these parks, so you are wasting money.

Aboriginal people want jobs, but more than that they want business opportunities. Why not put the $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 that you are wasting each year into building infrastructure? Forget about wardens because there will be no visitors there for 10 years.

Senator Cochrane: Do not worry about conservation.

Senator Sibbeston: Ecologically the land will not be disturbed.

Mr. Lee: I want to be clear about where we are on conservation. We are trying to follow the agreements. For example, this land claim agreement says that "planning for the national park and the management thereof shall have as their objects to protect the wilderness characteristics of the area, maintaining its present undeveloped state to the greatest extent possible and to protect and manage wildlife populations." That is what the parties have agreed upon, so we do have to do that. I do not want to stop doing that. However, I am not objecting to the other things you are saying.

You are telling me that we have not done the other things yet and I am saying that we should go ahead. There is a management board responsible for this agreement. Let them tell us what they want. In none of the parks have I made a decision on a proposal they have made for tourism that rejected what they wanted. I understand the perceptual problems of great distances and communications, et cetera, but there is not a "southern policy" on this that is working against the northern parks. I would like to hear these proposals.

Senator Cochrane: Only a couple of weeks ago the minister said that there will never again be a road built in a national park. Are we going to change?

The Chairman: As Mr. Lee has said, all of the land claims agreements strongly emphasize protection of the environment and integrity of the land. It was not only Parks Canada that negotiated those agreements. Both parties gave that a high priority. All the agreements go in that direction.

Mr. Lee: Generally they do, and Ivvavik is very strongly conservation based, which is what the communities wanted. However, they also all contain the desire for participation and economic benefits. I am telling you that we can do better. I know how to get there.

Senator Sibbeston: We can have a good discussion and come to some conclusions around this table. However, to implement those conclusions for the people in the field will take perhaps 20 years. People have a certain mentality and that is what we are dealing with. Park mentality is very unique.

I live in Fort Simpson near Nahanni National Park. I know that Parks Canada people have a very different mentality. When people are trained in the system, they are imbued with a certain approach and it is difficult to change. I have heard Parks Canada officials in Nahanni National Park say that local people are the enemy. They think they are the only valid protectors of the park and that anyone else - even native people who go into the park - are the enemy who will take a little flower or a little plant. They are very protective.

Mr. Lee: I am glad you raised that. Had I been aware of that, that would be fixed. That is not acceptable.

Senator Sibbeston: I say this to you as a challenge. We can have an understanding here, but whether you can change that in the field will be the challenge for you. We are dealing with people for whom being a parks official is their life; it is very difficult to change their attitude and approaches.

We just spent some time in the Yukon. I know that you have a section in your organization that is concerned with hiring native people. When I got home to Fort Simpson, I heard about an Aboriginal person who applied for a job and did not get it because the requirements were skewed. One requirement was to use a certain type of computer system, about which the applicant was told the day before the interview. As well, in the competition the applicants had to use a computer to draw a sign. They hired a White person who had lived in Fort Simpson for less than a year. Her expertise was in making charts and graphs.

It is a long way from Fort Simpson to Ottawa. I know how government works. Although the top levels can agree to do certain things, it is sometimes many years before those agreements are implemented. Sometimes the civil service can make it impossible for things to change. I am concerned about that.

Mr. Lee: Let us see what I can do about that. We have to think long term because I will not be here forever.

I want to give you a better feeling for what is happening. Four or five years ago there were no Aboriginal people in our senior management structure. Now the superintendent of Gwaii Haanas is Aboriginal, the field unit superintendent of Wood Buffalo is an Aboriginal woman and a woman of Aboriginal origin is taking over the northern Saskatchewan parks. The field unit superintendent for all of Northern Ontario is an Aboriginal woman. The field unit superintendent for western Newfoundland and Northern Labrador is Aboriginal. That is in three to four years.

We have not moved ahead as quickly as we might have in some northern parks, but we were not as focussed as we are now. We are focussed, I can tell you. When we get that focussed, you will not have a hiring problem like the description that you just had. It will be fixed.

Senator Cochrane: I have been quoting a statement that you made in The Globe and Mail a couple of months ago about the lack of funding.

You said that at least $1 billion is needed over the next five years just to catch up with the necessary maintenance projects that the parks have had to put off in the last few years because of budget cuts.

Have you had any encouraging comments from the Minister of Finance about that? Would you comment on that?

The Chairman: How much do you need?

Mr. Lee: The $1 billion was broken down into three packages. The first package was the money needed to create new parks and sites. Included in that was the continued funding for the newly created Arctic parks. Will I be successful in that? I will. That is perhaps the most crucial element that would apply in the Arctic.

The second element of that was the existing infrastructure. That infrastructure is almost all southern. That includes the old parks. There is $7 billion of built infrastructure. Reinvestment is necessary. The normal rate of reinvestment is approximately 4 per cent per year; we are investing at 0.5 per cent. We have a problem sustaining the existing infrastructure.

The third area was the ecological integrity problem, which is primarily a southern problem.

In terms of our ability to operate the existing parks in the North and make investments out of our current funds as you, as senators, have suggested, we will be able to do that.

However, we are lacking in certain areas such as human resource development. This does not apply only to my staff, but also to the private Inuit companies that need to develop business opportunities to support the parks. There does not seem to be any focus on that aspect of the business infrastructure. I have not been allocated money for that purpose. HRDC has money, but they do not use a top-down type of decision making process. That is where I see the problem.

We did do something differently with the Inuit benefit agreements we signed last summer, for the three parks - the two on Baffin Island and one on Ellesmere Island. This money is there. We made a $3 million grant to enable the six communities associated with the parks to make the most of the economic opportunities that would arise from the parks. They have that money.

Senator Cochrane: Who decides on how it is spent?

Mr. Lee: They make that decision. This is only one year later.

Senator Cochrane: Is that for infrastructure within their communities?

Mr. Lee: It is to make the most of the inherent economic opportunities that arise from the parks. We provided them with another grant of $200,000, for a national park scholarship fund, which they administer. We also committed to provide $240,000 to develop Inuit tourism studies. There was an additional $1 million for training members of their committee to enhance visitor information, presentation material and so on. In those three parks we have put in place some funding that will make a difference. The distinction is that this money is in the hands of the local people. They have it.

In the Western Arctic, we do not have anything like that.

Senator Cochrane: In the article in The Globe and Mail, you said that you need $1 billion over the next five years just to catch up on maintenance problems with the old parks that we have already.

Mr. Lee: If that is what it said, it was wrong. The ecological panel for southern parks, their figure is $328 million over five years.

The nature of the infrastructure problem, which has been agreed upon by Treasury Board is a problem, is a $90 million a year reinvestment figure, in the $7 billion worth of existing infrastructure. Over five years, that is $450 million.

The Chairman: That is just to upgrade existing infrastructure.

Mr. Lee: That is to maintain the current physical plant in the visitor services.

The final amount was for new parks and sites which would have been roughly the balance, somewhere in the order of $200 million for new parks and sites over five years. That is what the 1 billion is made up of.

If The Globe reported it the other way, this is the right information. Newspapers do not always get it right. The infrastructure is $450 million over five years, $90 million a year.

The Chairman: Is that for new infrastructure?

Mr. Lee: That is for old infrastructure, existing roads, visitor service centres, campgrounds, picnic areas, trails and so on.

The Chairman: If you get your $1 billion, will that meet your needs?

Mr. Lee: I will never see $1 billion. We will see investments in some of these packages. The one that was announced was $130 million over four years. Part of that is for new parks; part of it is for ecological integrity. I do not have the final figures yet because the government has not made all of its final budget decisions.

The Chairman: We have heard that - in regard to Nunavut, particularly - some tourist information centres are being built and they will only serve that purpose. Whereas healing centres or cultural centres that are used by the community year-round could also be used as information centres. Is that being looked at?

Mr. Lee: That would be a possible model. That is the situation in some locations. If we were doing that over again we would not do it that way.

The Chairman: This is the thing. We have other ones. Is there any way to ensure that monies are well used and the community can benefit 12 months of the year and Parks can benefit when it needs it?

Mr. Lee: It can happen, and we have two such proposals. In the Paulatuk proposal, the hotel was combined with the visitor centre. We also have a proposal from Wood Buffalo, which contains a visitor centre, a community aspect and an elders' aspect all under one roof. The thinking has evolved on that. I think that idea is right. It probably will not always work that way.

The Chairman: I presume none of these things are built without community input.

Mr. Lee: They are always built with community input, although community views may differ from time to time, and it depends on the nature of the program. At Pond Inlet there is an interpretative centre for the park interpretation. The community uses it for other presentations - drum dancing for tourists, for example - and to house its historical library. These things are all possible.

Senator Cochrane: At the beginning of your address, you mentioned the north-south and south-north, and what may happen in the south will probably happen in the north. Would you elaborate on that?

Mr. Lee: One of the strongest things happening in the south is the native programming that is occurring in parks. We examined all of our parks and sites across Canada, and we asked ourselves whether the Aboriginal story is being told. In many cases, it was not; in some cases, it was. Who is telling it?

One of the annual work objectives of the field superintendents is to ensure that when that Aboriginal story is there, it is being told. As well, wherever possible, have the Aboriginal people involved in telling their own story.

This is similar to the question of whether we could do that type of thing in the north. Yes, we could. Are we doing it now? No. However, it is happening in the south, and it can happen in the north as soon as people are ready to do it.

The Chairman: For example, in one of the northern parks through which people hike for several weeks, could they have those tent frame interpretative centres as they go along?

Mr. Lee: I would think it is possible.

The Chairman: Could there be Inuit guides that would stop at these historic places, and could there be historic kinds of accommodation?

Mr. Lee: Yes. We do need the cooperation of local people. Depending on the community, some people want that and some people do not.

Senator Sibbeston: On the ground level, the experience is when native people try to work cooperatively with Parks, Parks overwhelms them. Parks Canada, with its southern, miscued mentality for the north, has very strong people. Any time you have any interrelations with native people, you guys win. You guys from the south with your southern ideas that you send north, you win all time. Therefore, one never gets anywhere.

I make reference to Kluane Park where a board has been set up, and following a meeting at Haines Junction two of the local Aboriginal people on the board quit. They had been involved for five years and it was frustrating.

Mr. Lee: I know the board well. I visited with them two weeks ago.

Senator Sibbeston: Why are local people quitting? We heard from people like Nellie Cournoyea in the Innuvik area who say it is frustrating to deal with Parks. It is not an equal partnership. You overwhelm people, so that you are not on the same ground, as it were.

Mr. Lee: We are dealing with two different situations. With respect to the Nellie Cournoyea situation, what I recall Nellie saying is she is frustrated with Ottawa, which she is. She has a different interpretation of the agreement. That situation was dealt with and the decision has been made. I think she made the statement that she enjoyed working with the local park people and was getting cooperation when she needed it.

Senator Sibbeston: Their company was frustrated at not being able to set up the infrastructure they need to make a go of it. They had a business idea for bringing people into the parks, but Parks vetoed or would not allow them to set up the infrastructure that is needed. That was the issue there.

Mr. Lee: What I will commit myself to doing - and I may do it before you report and I may like to meet with you before I do - is I will issue a statement about the north and my expectations because you and I are not that far apart. Your concern is that my staff may not understand my expectations. I can fix that.

Senator Cochrane: Can I mention, Mr. Lee, that Mr. Anderson, Chairman of Kluane Park, came down to a round table discussion in Hamilton and he wasn't very happy when he came back. He said six hours were spent around the table for Parks Canada people to tell their story. The story that they had to tell did not have much appeal for people like him. He came back rather frustrated. He said it was a waste of time. The North was not represented in regard to any of the views given by Parks Canada. I just wanted to mention it.

Mr. Lee: Let me comment on it because I know the individual. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I have talked to him about it. He may have put a particular slant on it. That is not his whole view. He did appreciate the conference, and Aboriginal people at that conference really appreciated it and made personal remarks to that effect in front of everyone.

However, one thing did not work and this may be of interest to you. For whatever reason, the invitees from the Arctic did not show up.

Senator Cochrane: He said he was the only one representing the north.

Mr. Lee: I do not know why that happened because three weeks later, the minister held a round table with Aboriginals on Heritage Tourism, and the Arctic was quite well represented at that one.

Senator Cochrane: Realistically, do you think there is a chance of significantly increasing the amount of tourist traffic in northern parks?

Mr. Lee: A huge volume situation would probably not be the answer. We are going to have to design different marketing strategies for this these parks than we have used in other places. The markets for those parks are, perhaps, of three types. One would be the real wilderness buff, very experienced. For example, the highest skilled mountain climbers in the world use Auyuittuq National Park Reserve. That is a very exclusive group. One characteristic of that group is they do not like any supervision, which brings me back to the question I raised earlier. If you went to a park like Sirmilik or Pond Inlet, would it be appropriate to have a rule that people cannot visit this park without a guide? How do we deal with that market?

I will provide the committee with the accounting for that. The money that was allocated involved two major items, and a number of small ones. One involved the visitor facility that was built as part of the hotel. There was another smaller amount provided for infrastructure in the park, involving some campsites or trails. I do not recall. I will get the committee the breakdown.

Senator Cochrane: We were not told about anything that was constructed in the park.

Mr. Lee: Let me get you the exact amount and where it went.

The Chairman: I wish to ask about this transfer of parks personnel. I understand that this is common because people want to transfer between parks to get different experiences and to learn different skills. One of the things we heard, especially in Nunavut, was that often a new parks supervisor arrives with little or no Arctic experience. The Inuit people who are living there have to train them in survival techniques, et cetera. They then get them nicely trained for the area and they move off to someplace else.

How can we overcome that? I think it happens in every park because every time a new person comes in they have to learn.

Mr. Lee: It does, senator. The comments are real and we should take them seriously. I do not think we have done a good job in preparing for that type of the thing.

Our current superintendent for Gwaii Haanas, who is Aboriginal, is moving out. She is going on to her next career step. For the past two years, we have had a superintendent-in-training, who is also Aboriginal and who will be the first Haida superintendent for Gwaii Haanas park. That person is ready to step in. The community knows him. He is trained. That is what we should be doing.

The Chairman: It reminds one of the 1930s when the RCMP were sent in. The first thing they had to do was get somebody to look after them and make sure they did not freeze or starve to death. That was 50 or 60 years ago. I think we should have progressed from there.

My other concern relates to the question of the different amounts of funding made available to the boards. It is probably as a result of the land claim agreements. I know in Kluane their budget was $30,000 or $40,000 per year and the North Slope Management Board was in the order of $120,000 per year. I think that has to do with the agreement, but I am not sure. I do not think it has anything to do with the parks.

Mr. Lee: We will get you a breakdown of what the boards are allocated how that originated. I cannot personally remember each one.

The Chairman: There is a major difference. Kluane was concerned because they could not do a lot with the amount of money they had.

Senator Sibbeston: I want to talk about the provision for Aboriginal people to be an integral part of the ecosystem of parks and not just participants. I think the Inuit people in the Easter Arctic have it in their agreement. I think there is a special Inuit clause. They pointed it out to us. It is very important. Perhaps it is the agency's way of doing something unique in the north.

I do not know whether I am talking about something that is obvious or whether I am asking you to do the impossible. Getting Aboriginal people into positions does not in itself indicate success. You can have Aboriginal people that are so imbued with a system that they are worse than white people. They are brown but they are so shell-shocked and so brainwashed that they are not able to be themselves.

I think the challenge is to have Aboriginal people who are really themselves, who feel comfortable and who provide a different approach, different insights and even different management styles. I think that is the challenge.

People go to the north to see the land and the people. A number of years ago, I went on a canoe trip in the Nahanni National Park. However, The food was all packaged in Ontario. When we got to Nahanni Butte, I ran to town and got some moose meat. I made some bannock. The people said, "We finally feel like we have been in the north." It could have been any lake or river in Ontario.

There is the concept of making it possible for Aboriginal people to feel themselves and to feel free. Eventually, you will have parks that will show the land and the Inuit people at their best. That is the real challenge.

Getting native people into suits and uniforms is not a test of your success. Do you understand what I mean?

Mr. Lee: I do know what you mean. I am aware of that problem. The example that you provided about Nahanni and different food, that should be part of these parks. That is part of the way we are going.

I had a terrific one-day trip last summer on the Soper River, which is in the southern end of Baffin over toward Lake Harbour. That was offered by Inuit people. It ended with a great caribou stew in the home of a local Inuit person. To me, that is the experience that these people should be having. You and I are on the same line.

Senator Sibbeston: Just as a side interest, I happen to have a home. I have a bed and breakfast country inn at Fort Simpson. We have had people come off the river and say, "Wow, I thought the trip was over. This is great." We have a home that is in the bush, and we serve caribou sausages, caribou stew, goose and bannock. People like to have that experience. There is a thirst for Aboriginal things. They do not want to see things they can see in Ontario. They want to see something different. That is what parks should be aiming towards.

Mr. Lee: That is where I think we can change over the next five years. We can start on some of those things. Again, we need the people in the community ready to pick up and take them on. We need that community leadership. We know that you and I cannot walk in and say, "Do that. You should be doing that. Why don't you do that?" We need to get that coming up from the people.

The Chairman: One area of concern was employment and hiring. What about avoiding cultural biases? Have you set up procedures to give weight to informal training and experience and that sort of thing? On the boards, when you hire, or is there a percentage of First Nations Aboriginals and Inuit on those boards?

Mr. Lee: I cannot answer all of these questions because I do not keep all that information in my head.

However, two or three years ago, we have made a substantial change in our warden requirements in the northern parks. We created a category that did not require a professional degree to try to get more people who knew a lot about the land, but did not have a that formal designation next to their name. We have provided staff with cultural training so that they have a little better knowledge of Aboriginal people. We have done that type of thing.

I am not sure that I can answer positively that in all cases our boards would reflect absence of bias. However, I do insist that individual superintendents have employment equity targets, including Aboriginal people. If they do not hire - whether it is their fault or not - they are held accountable for it. I focus on the result.

This is all a reflection of changing times. In some cases, it is a matter of availability. The new office in Iqualuit is quite amazing: It is 50 per cent Inuit, 50 per cent not Inuit. There are three languages spoken in that office: Inuktitut, English and French. I think 42 per cent of the employees are women. You almost have a modern multicultural office there.

You can go to another office in the eastern Arctic and it looks like yesterday. It is more the old type of thing. If we were doing it today, we would do it differently. We will get there.

The Chairman: Just in closing, would you agree that northern parks and their administration and how they have developed are quite different from southern parks?

Mr. Lee: Yes.

The Chairman: How do we reflect that? Do we reflect it through new policies, or can it be reflected through existing policies?

Mr. Lee: I am not aware of any existing policies that would prevent us from moving ahead. I think I have to write something down that clarifies the application of policies in northern parks. That may be the same thing. It is not creating a policy for northern parks. The policy pieces are already there. Our staff has to have a clear understanding of the policies. Sometimes employees might say something that does not reflect the policy of Parks Canada. We can clarify things there.

I need to consolidate a statement about northern parks that makes clear what our policy positions are. I do not think any of it will be new policy, but it will be clear.

The Chairman: You feel that the needs and concerns that we have heard expressed and have expressed to you can be met under existing legislation.

Mr. Lee: I would say so, but not without clarification. You have convinced me that clarification is needed.

Senator Cochrane: You must also notify the people that are out there in the North working for Parks Canada. They must be aware of this, and they must follow it. I do not know how to tell you this, but some bureaucrats see everything in black and white and there is no grey.

Mr. Lee: I know.

Senator Sibbeston: Can I suggest the opening lines of your new policy or message to northerners? "Ease up. You are in the North. Be practical and reasonable. Remember you are working firstly for the people in the North."

Mr. Lee: I hope my staff are keeping some notes. You are saying very much what I feel.

Senator Sibbeston: Forget everything you learned in the south.

The Chairman: Do not forget everything. There are good things coming from both directions.

Thank you for coming. I feel comfortable with the presentation and the answers you have given us. I feel that you appreciate and understand the concerns that we have and have heard. I speak for myself, and the other two senators can add their bit as well, but the Parks people we spoke to in the area had an appreciation of the differences and wanted to work with the people in the area and have a different type of mentality. That changes, of course, as people change and new people come in.

I think the future is certainly bright. Certainly, Parks people are a very unique breed, as Senator Sibbeston has said. They are also very loyal, because once they are in the Parks Canada, they never want to leave because it is such an excellent and unique environment in which to work. They are very dedicated people. Sometimes they are a little bit impossible to move, but they are very dedicated to their work. Perhaps that is a downfall in some cases.

I appreciate the time you have given us. We look forward to receiving the things you promised to send to us. Now we must get on with our job.

Mr. Lee: I have very much enjoyed this. You are a fine committee with which to work. If I can do anything to help as you prepare your report or if you want to have a session to discuss ideas, please call on me. I want a report from you that I can work with and that I can make happen.

Senator Cochrane: We want to see it happen.

Senator Sibbeston: Can you assure us right now that you will comply with and abide with all of our recommendations? Otherwise, our trip will have been for nothing. We are in an age where we do not have in very many good years, so we want to make use of every opportunity possible.

Mr. Lee: I am serious. When this committee was originally discussed, I was working with Mr. Watt. I said, "Let us work together so that we get a report that we can make happen." I am making that offer to you if, between now and the preparation of the report, you have other ideas, because that works for everyone.

The Chairman: We will be making a report at the end of September. We will want to have a meeting with the minister immediately after the Senate has approved it and present it to her directly.

The committee adjourned.

---