Mary Jane McCallum, from the Barren Lands First Nation in Manitoba. Thank you.

Welcome to all the guests here this morning. When we look at the history of colonialism and colonization, which is land dispossession, I really approach all the legislation with hesitancy. When I look at this bill, there are articles on Canada’s national parks are colonial crime scenes and the shady past of Parks Canada forcing out Indigenous people. That’s the history of it. Despite all that, Inuit still have their traditional knowledge regarding environmental guardianship that has been passed down since time immemorial.

When I look at this bill, are you happy with the bill? Is it going in the right direction? When I look at the new transformative relationship that Canada has with First Nations, Métis and Inuit, in this situation, the Canadian government and conservation should prioritize Indigenous-led conservation, and this will involve providing adequate funding, capacity-building opportunities, and legal frameworks that recognize Indigenous jurisdiction and decision-making authority.

Will this bill accomplish that? Can you comment on that?

Okay. Is there anything that you would want to see added to what is happening? You can even send in information on that, any guidance you could give us on how to ensure that it is Indigenous led and respectful of your principles of free, prior and informed consent. That’s all I’ll say for now. Thank you.

When we look at the definition in the bill of “traditional land user,” there is a list of individuals who use that land. The only community that is named is the NunatuKavut Community Council. Is your name in any of these bills? Senator Sorensen, I don’t know where —

I don’t see your name anywhere in any of this as being a traditional land user. There are quite a few parks in this. I’m a bit mixed up as well. Why are the rights holders’ names not listed on this bill? Can we look into that?

Okay. I’ll get back to you on that.

Yes.

I am going to go back to what Senator Wells had spoken about, about traditional land users and the people who are included in there.

You said there is a difference between land users and rights holders, that the rights holders are the rightful land users. When we look at the NunatuKavut Community Council, we were told last time that they are not recognized as section 35 rights holders, and yet the rights holders are not anywhere on this bill and that it is an oversight.

Canada is now proposing to add a new class of traditional land holders by including this group and that the recognition of traditional land users was contemplated in the 2015 Memorandum of Understanding to establish the park between Canada and the Province of Newfoundland, and it was accepted by the Innu Nation. The class of traditional land users was to be limited to those meeting the criteria set out in (c) to (g) of the definition.

The Innu Nation has a concern about this. I don’t know how you would look at correcting that, but there is a gentleman there, as I said.

The other question I have is about land claims. There are existing land claims in the park. How will these be addressed while this is happening?

With section 40 and this, it seems to be in conflict. Is it? You have the rights holders in section 40 and the non-rights holders in this one.

Under “traditional land user,” the definition. It is on page 8 of the bill.

Thank you so very much. I’ll go on second round.

We are going back to that topic again because it’s very concerning to me that we have groups coming forward claiming Indigeneity because they have a First Nation, Métis or Inuit grandfather or grandmother four or five generations down, and they are claiming this Indigeneity. In our circle, we call this the last frontier — where the people are taking our identities, claiming our minds, claiming our bodies as First Nations, Métis and Inuit and going after our rights, lands, resources and benefits. As well, it seems the government is supporting this.

When we look back at this park, is Canada proposing to empower the superintendent to authorize cabin construction for personal use by anyone, when the 2015 MOU simply provided for existing cabins to be grandfathered? With this group that is not an established rights holder, 5,000 people will want to be putting in a cabin where right now there are 10 families.

What is the situation? Could you comment on the situation?