Would you like us to respond?

Thanks, Senator Arnot.

I should say I’m not actually sure where you got the idea that I didn’t like the sentiment in it or those sorts of things, because certainly the sentiment is something that already exists in the actions of Parks Canada. Already the Parks Canada Agency Act has a requirement for the minister on a biannual basis to have a ministers’ round table where, in fact, these types of civil society, by definition, must be invited to the ministers’ round table to give input on the entire system that we have, so on all cultural resources that are under our responsibility and on all natural areas that are under our responsibility as well. So from that perspective, the Parks Canada Agency Act, which is the umbrella act over the Canada National Parks Act that has us moving forward, includes that as a portion of the legislation already.

The other thing that we have that must be tabled every 10 years in Parliament — so an actual parliamentary document — is the management plan for every one of the parks. In that management plan, there is a consultation duty within that, and again, consultation for all of these similar organizations, so that two-way back-and-forth; and then the document itself, having the weight of it being a parliamentary document is the other portion of that from where we see hopefully meeting what the witness had said.

The only issue that Parks Canada would have with the amendment as written is the fact that it’s expansive and very difficult for us to be able to take. It would be difficult to say if this has actually happened or not and what the remedies would be if it had not happened. It’s more on the legal side and not on the aspirational side. We share in your same aspiration to have that back-and-forth conversation with civil society. Obviously, it’s a duty, and a constitutional duty in many instances with Indigenous people where we have treaties or agreements, including Indigenous benefits agreements as well.

Those types of considerations we feel are already in there, but certainly from an aspirational perspective, senator, we share in your same aspiration with that. On the “shall,” the duty, that is the action we take today, but if it’s in legislation, that is the decision of legislators, not ourselves.

I don’t know whether getting into debate — that is as the individual felt. From our perspective on the enforceability or the direction of it, I think we’re already following that.

The second burden is that it includes all natural and cultural resources in the country. That would be expanding within the Canada National Parks Act, because right now, everything within the act is bound by those things the minister has responsibility for. This would extend that outside of the areas that are within national parks and national marine conservation areas, I’m assuming.

I think it still leaves it open. I think we would need to look at that offline and get counsel on that.

At some point, yes, you certainly could. Within anything in an act, you can set it out again, as we know, in regulation, policy and procedures. In this case, though, it would be how you were then narrowing what, in fact, legislators have put forward. Normally, narrowing isn’t an approach that we would take in policy.

Maybe, if I could, where we would normally see those things to give us those aspirational goals are often in preambles of acts. That is not to say that might be a better place for it, because that would be outside of my point, but that’s normally where we would see those things that would help us in determining those sorts of large goals for the organization.

Further to that, because I have the responsibility for the occupational health and safety of our employees, one of the things that could occur with this — and it is something that happens on a regular basis, just to get back to Senator Arnot’s question — is visitor to visitor conflict. Thus is leading people to say that they are going to enforce or stop you or take proactive measures to not do what you are in the process of doing, as opposed to today, which would be informing somebody else and having an official actually take that action. From that perspective, quite frankly, the most dangerous interactions we have for our employees are visitor to visitor, where the conflict grows and our people have to become involved.

I’m not aware of the Auditor General’s report you’re referring to, no.

I’ll just start with the difference between a cabin and a tilt, unless everyone already knows that.

A cabin, and why it might be good to define the cabin, is a structure that continues to be able to be occupied. A tilt is the colloquial term in Labrador for, essentially, a lean-to. They are often used for hunting and other purposes in the back country or at the end of snowmobiling and those sorts of things. It’s not as permanent a structure as a lean-to or made in that sort of way. In many ways, it would be difficult to say whether you are rebuilding because of winter wear on those types of lean-to structures or whether that tilt existed.

There are essentially four agreements that we have around this national park reserve. One, of course, is with the Nunatsiavut government. There is their title and then an agreement around that title that extends rights through the rest of the park. Then there is an interim agreement on the way to full recognition with the Innu Nation, and that establishes their rights within the park. Then you have an accommodation to a court decision, which is called the shared understanding agreement, with the NunatuKavut government. The final one is the land transfer agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In a number of those agreements, in order to make them whole, because the tilts are temporary structures, it would be difficult to say what existed and what did not. In at least one of the other agreements, and potentially more, in order to be able to allow people to carry out traditional activities, you would need to be able to accept that tilts could be rebuilt. As I said, they are temporary types of structures.

I don’t have that number in front of me, sorry.

I think it’s 20 existing cabins.

The tilts are not within their agreement, but they are a function of being able to do —

Exactly. To do their traditional activity. That is why we didn’t want the word “existing.” It’s hard to have that word.

Correct. Yes.

There are two ways. The first is through permitting. For individuals who don’t have Indigenous rights, there will still need to be an environmental assessment of those going in or an environmental permit. So there will be an assessment prior to them going in.

If I may respond, in fact, as worded with “tilts” without the amendment saying “existing,” if you just continue to say “tilts,” you are in fact ensuring those activities. That is why the government, with our advice, had put it forward in the bill: to be sure that the traditional activity was protected. That’s why the word “tilts” is in there.

When you put the word “existing” in front, it could bring into question what tilts they are. If they fall down during the winter and there is a rebuild and you are saying that only existing tilts are allowed, you might be limiting the traditional activity. So adding the word “existing” could limit the traditional activity. As it’s written right now, tilts are protected within the park for use as a traditional activity.

Under the superintendent’s authority with the co-management boards that exist within the park.

Yes, to support traditional activities, absolutely.

I think this would depend on whether you are prepared to have the act include a definition of cabin or a definition of tilt. And if you look on the French side, because a tilt is so hard to define, when you read the French copy of the bill, in fact, what it says is — I’d better get it, in fact, correct. It literally says “shelters commonly” — yes.

On 3.