The important thing to remember about Gatineau Park is that it’s already protected under the National Capital Act, but it doesn’t have the same protection as a national park.

One thing the minister mentioned is that the national urban parks policies may be a way to obtain additional protection. We’re discussing that with the NCC, whose board should also be in favour. The NCC is seeking advice.

Absolutely.

[English]

A couple of things. First, we are specifically excluded from using expropriation, so legally that’s not a tool. It would all be on a willing buyer willing seller basis, a provincial transfer, or that which a rights holder may, in fact, have and want to transfer under both their own and federal protections. So that would be the only way that it could move through.

However, where we are looking at individuals, where that happens and there is traditional use within that area, that’s a separate section often within different parks that describes traditional users, and I want to make the distinction very clear. Section 40 of the National Parks Act already protects right holders, so every right holder across the country is protected for their ability to have traditional use within that outside of the Constitution, which obviously gives that protection as well. But that’s right within the National Parks Act. We aren’t amending that today, so this act would not be about that amendment. Traditional right holders, as are described, are those where they are a traditional user but not a rights holder.

The third part of your question is if Rouge is a model for all other national parks.

When we look at the Rouge National Urban Park, it’s certainly a wonder and an excellent model. It serves as a model but not necessarily the only model. As we are looking at moving ahead with, for instance, the Meewasin in Saskatoon, you would not need to have ownership of the land at the federal level. The same is true when we’re looking at Edmonton and the national urban park in the valley in Edmonton. You wouldn’t have to have federal ownership of the land, whereas the Rouge National Urban Park Act is designed in such a way, separate from the Canada National Parks Act but still designed in a way that the ownership is federal.

We have an interim agreement between ourselves and the Innu Nation around the claim for the Nunatsiavut government. There is a full agreement. That’s the northern end of the park.

As the minister said, if we didn’t get it right, we certainly are pleased to and will continue to meet with rights holders.

One last thing, as the minister mentioned, we aren’t amending section 40. It is not proposed to be amended. It already includes all of the rights holders within section 40 of the Canada National Parks Act as it exists today.

The unique element of the Parks Canada piece of the Guardians program is the fact that it’s really nation-to-nation and in most establishment agreements now, so as new places are being established, the Guardians program is a fundamental part of the agreement. As we move forward, that will just be the manner in which national parks, national marine conservations, national urban parks will be administered. It won’t be an add-on or anything additional; it will be the way of how we move forward.

Within what is looked at within the act is — again, coming back too, there are two groups — one, and as previously mentioned by Senator Wells, the group in the establishment agreement, there were, in fact, two different types of groups. There were those who were rights holders and those who were traditional land users.

In the traditional land user definition, one of the elements within that agreement was also the establishment of what was called a shared understanding agreement with the NunatuKavut.

Senator, coming back to you, that is where, potentially within that incorporated group, there could be many thousands of members. Where we need to continue that discussion with the Innu Nation is to look at that from a cabin perspective.

There would be cooperative and co-management, in fact, with the two rights holders groups. We would be in a position where the superintendent could, and I’m not — but it would be under the direction of the three groups together — sorry, the two rights holders groups and Parks Canada — I don’t want anybody to be confused about the three I am talking about — and the establishment of that.

We’re holding consultations with all the town representatives, all the Indigenous groups —

We’re going to consult all the industrial associations over the coming year. Then there’ll be feasibility studies.