Yes, I do think it strengthens those tools. It provides Parks Canada with more power around substances, such as pesticides, that might come into parks. I think that’s good.

Expanding the area of parks is always a good thing. We are at a fairly low level of total protected areas in Canada, I would say. Obviously, Parks Canada contributes to the total amount of protected area in Canada. It’s about 3% or 4%, so it is important to expand the boundaries of the parks, too. Anything that can create a buffer between parks, protected areas, such as national parks, and non-protected areas will always be a good thing.

I appreciate the work you do. I think when people think about national parks, they don’t always necessarily think about the marine life in the national park. Again, I appreciate that is what you focus on.

Welcome, Ms. Adeline Salomonie.

I know nothing about this new national marine area which will be created in your region. Could you please, for us who know little about it, tell us why you are interested in conservation of this area? What will it bring to the Inuit people in concrete terms? Why are you in agreement with this project and what will it bring to you? What kinds of rights will be enhanced or not? We need to know a little bit more about this place up there.

Thank you for your question.

Starting in the 1960s, Inuit have been advocating for the protection of Tallurutiup Imanga, or Lancaster Sound, from oil and gas development. Inuit are connected to the waters and the wildlife very closely, so the importance of protecting this area was very near and dear to our hearts. It is within the High Arctic and North Baffin region of our area. The five affected communities — as I had mentioned — are Grise Fiord, Resolute Bay, Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet and Clyde River. The protection of it was very important but also what that could mean for Inuit within the area.

Right now within Tallurutiup Imanga, we have 25 employees decentralized. That’s 25 people who are benefiting from economic opportunities and are able to have full-time jobs within their communities. Also, it allows our Inuit employees to be paid as full-time hunters, researchers and providers. Having employment where they can use the skills they have known all their lives — hunting, being on the land and knowing the environment — is the real tangible benefit that Tallurutiup Imanga has been able to provide for the communities. Also, some communities will be getting small craft and community harbours. We are a coastal region, so having these kinds of infrastructure in place is very important for us. There are also plans to build multi-use facilities within Tallurutiup Imanga. These facilities will be workstations for our employees to be able to process country food, have workspaces and provide community engagement activities.

One of the things employees do when they do community engagement activities is to engage elders and youth to practise our traditional skills like making [Indigenous language spoken] — or sleds as they are called in English — as well as learning to repair skidoos and their boats. Tallurutiup Imanga has also provided equipment for our employees to be able to harvest and do research and monitoring in our area. We are able to provide them with resources they need to be able to do their jobs, like snowmobiles, boats and equipment for them to be out on the land.

They also receive training that they may not have been able to easily get. Having certifications for firearms or search and rescue are tangible benefits they’ve been able to receive. We call them transferable skills. If they don’t want to be in Tallurutiup Imanga forever, then they can go on to other types of employment. We provide those kinds of certifications as well. That’s what the Tallurutiup Imanga has been able to provide for us.

As a short follow-up question, you said you were afraid that oil and gas development would happen. Was there any serious project on that front up there? Will this new protection prevent any kind of industrial or mining development? Would there be nothing?

I wouldn’t say there would be nothing —

I shouldn’t be saying “nothing” — this is not the right term. There would be no industry or no mining?

Oil and gas development started happening within the area in the 1960s, and Inuit became very concerned about what that would mean for our region and our people. Of course, we wanted to protect our waters and wildlife from any harm that could cause.

Right now with Tallurutiup Imanga, research and exploration could maybe happen in the future, but it has to go through a process in which an application has to be submitted to the [Indigenous language spoken] board, which is the board that governs the Tallurutiup Imanga. As you may or may not know, the Tallurutiup Imanga is a co-management system with the federal government. Therefore, any kind of activities that are happening within our region will have to go through an application process.

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming today. It’s just very helpful. I have one broad question for all three witnesses: Could this act be improved in any way? No act is perfect. Are there things that are not in the act that you would like to see and that you think we should consider here in terms of an amendment to the act? Is there anything missing? Do you want to push the boundaries a little bit?

Specifically, we have heard from Dr. Lem about the impact that the Rouge National Urban Park had on her life. What criteria is used to identify the creation of a national urban park? Is the Rouge National Urban Park a model for the rest of Canada? How many are there? I know there are none in Saskatchewan.

Similarly, about the expansion of parks, I am happy to see that the Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan is included in this work. What are the criteria for expanding an existing park? How does that work? What are the plans, generally, for the expansion of other parks and then duplicating something like the Rouge National Urban Park in other provinces and territories?

Chair, could I suggest that question is probably better left for the next panel? The minister and Parks Canada will be there. I’m not sure these witnesses would be able to respond to that second part of your question.

Can you remember that question, and ask it?

That’s okay. Mr. Campbell is in the gallery.

I think every senator has the right to ask a question.

Yes. I’m sorry. I’m just suggesting that maybe —

The first question is about whether there are any improvements that can be made in this act. Do any of the witnesses want to answer that question? Is there room for improving this particular bill that we are studying today?

Dr. Lem: I would be happy to suggest two possible improvements to this bill. One of them, specifically, has to do with the provisions that have to do with protecting parks from pollutants and harm. There are some areas where, for example, if the person fails to take the measures they are ordered to take, the minister may take the measures on behalf of His Majesty and right of Canada. I would like to see that language in there — that the superintendent may or the minister may — perhaps consider changing that to “shall” so that enforcement and notification do happen.

One other provision that I think could be established has to do with more involvement of people in this process. I’m wondering if a citizen enforcement mechanism could be built into this bill and also language around removing barriers to citizen participation in reporting these toxins or pollutants that may be identified by people in the community.

Sometimes, as we know, if industry or government is responsible for monitoring and reporting on these issues, it doesn’t always happen. Therefore, I would like to consider that both these amendments and improvements be made. In particular, the second one which is more important to engage everyday citizens in this reporting.

Do you have more on that point?

On that exact point, Dr. Lem, could you please follow up your comments with a note — a memorandum — in writing about those two amendments you just suggested?

Dr. Lem: I would be happy to.

Do we have a date or deadline for when we want that information? We would appreciate to have that sent to us — to the clerk — by December 7 at the latest. Thank you so much.

Do Ms. Salomonie or Professor Norris want to add something to improve this bill?

I just want to say that I’m in full support of the amendments that Dr. Lem proposed. I don’t have a specific amendment, but I would just like to take this opportunity to recognize that, in particular, some of the parks in heavily urbanized areas and heavily developed areas really need more than what is currently being added here. We need to keep a focus on that. Some of these parks are really islands in the middle of heavily developed areas.

I’m happy to talk about specifics if the committee wants, but really we need more protection around those islands. I know that won’t be an amendment to the bill but just wanted to put that in.