Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba.

[Translation]

Which amendment are we looking at here?

Okay.

Did the Auditor General’s report say that Parks Canada was not doing its job in keeping the parks clean? Is that where your concern came from? I was going to raise it at committee, that there was a report that said that. Do you know of it?

On page 1, when you look at the 24(1) offence, it says “every person” who contravenes this. Who is that “every person” that is different from what is written there? They are guilty of an offence. It’s page 1, right at the bottom. It’s clause 3 that creates new subsection 24(1). So when you’re looking at what Senator Arnot is requesting, would that be offered under there, possibly, or is that “every person has a duty” too big?

Could these words be put into an observation?

Yes.

Am I doing the amendment?

Okay. Let me do it, then.

I hereby move:

That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 6, on page 3,

(a) by replacing lines 25 and 26 with the following:

“tion of existing cabins, or may issue licences for the personal use or occupation of existing cabins on those lands, and may renew or”;

(b) by replacing lines 30 to 32 with the following:

“al Park Reserve of Canada for the personal use or occupation of existing tilts, or may issue licences for the personal use or occupation of existing tilts on”;

(c) by replacing lines 37 to 39 with the following:

“may authorize the personal use or occupation of existing cabins on public lands in the park reserve, or the personal use or occupation of existing tilts on those lands, and”.

Can I tell you why I put them in?

Yes, and I will set the context for it.

The Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve is the homeland of two Indigenous peoples with section 35 rights: the Innu of Labrador represented by the Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit represented by the Nunatsiavut government. Nunatsiavut has concluded a modern treaty and self-government agreement, and the Innu Nation is within months of finalizing their own treaty.

The Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve was established in 2015, following the recommendations of a feasibility study and negotiations between Parks Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Innu Nation, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement for the Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak National Park Reserve between Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the land transfer agreement and the Innu Nation Park Impacts and Benefits Agreement.

The land transfer agreement, which established the park, recognizes two section 35 rights-holding groups in Labrador — Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut government — and includes extensive provisions in respect to Innu and Inuit rights and interests. It also provides for individuals who do not have section 35 rights but are long-term residents of the park reserve area to qualify as traditional land users and acquire permits to continue to carry out certain traditional activities. The land transfer agreement also permits existing cabins to continue but prohibits new cabins from being established.

Bill S-14 includes provisions related to Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak National Park Reserve that, if brought into effect, would expand the scope of activity allowed within the park reserve, including the establishment of new cabins and tilts. It would improperly recognize all members of the NunatuKavut community council as traditional land users with statutory rights to engage in a wide range of traditional activities within the national park reserve, and it would breach agreements with the Innu Nation.

This amendment is about upholding the 2015 land transfer agreement, and the current provisions of Bill S-14 that would extend and expand the class of traditional land users to all members of NCC, an unrecognized and controversial group that claims Indigenous status. It would expand the scope of traditional uses to enable the construction of new cabins and tilts by non-rights holders. The committee has heard concerns about impacts of these amendments on the ecological integrity of the park reserve and the impacts on the ability of the Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut Government and their members to exercise their recognized section 35 rights in competition with non-rights holders.

The bill as proposed would depart from the balance achieved in the feasibility study, which recommended a limited scope of users and activities should be included within the definition of traditional use. This was to ensure that any impacts of those activities on the exercise of a section 35 right by Innu Nation and Nunatsiavut would be manageable and maintain the ecological integrity of the park reserve.

Expanding the scope of traditional uses and the number of traditional land users will undermine the ecological integrity of the national park reserve and is directly contrary to the central purpose of the act to maintain parks as unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The motion proposes to add “existing” to the references to cabins and tilts in section 14 so as to maintain the provisions of the land transfer agreement at sections 14.3 and 14.5, which only allow for existing cabins to be maintained or replaced by traditional land users.

So you want to remove tilts?

I do have —

First of all, do you know the number of tilts that are on the land right now?

And it’s 10 cabins right now?

Okay, I thought it was just 10.

When we do traditional activities, we carry tents. Those are our temporary shelters. For some people, that is their lifestyle and culture. It’s easier than building a cabin, which takes time.

When you say that we’re not going to have tilts, you’re going to be preventing people from having the tilts, because they can’t afford to build a cabin. So do you need to consult with the rights holders? Was this in their agreement?

— to hunt.

So leave it but remove the word “existing.”

But how are you going to limit the numbers now?

I would need to go through this with the lawyer, because I didn’t expect this. Because I’m working with the Innu Nation, I don’t know this. So this one, I cannot say I agree with it because it’s not my job to do that.

I would have to take that to the Innu Nation because of that. If they are going hunting and have to stay overnight, that’s what they build. You’re going to prevent them. Some will not be able to have a cabin. They’ve had this activity on the land all this time, and if you remove it, then what are they going to do? You’re limiting cultural activity.