I’m Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut.

I’d like to thank the officials for being here and available to answer questions. Thank you for your understanding that you’re not going to participate in the debate but are here as a resource. In that connection, I’d like to ask a question.

Mr. Campbell, I understood from your discussion with Senator Arnot that you felt that the first amendment, while it does replicate what is already in the Parks Canada Agency Act, is, I think you said, expansive and difficult to measure the extent of encouraging public engagement — the words from Senator Arnot’s proposed amendment. My question is this: could that question not be defined in policy, assuming the amendment passes? Could that not be spelled out in policy or procedures that would be developed by the Parks Canada administration?

Would you or Ms. Cunningham comment on the same question with respect to the second amendment, which is the duty to take measures to prevent the discharge of a substance capable of degrading the national environment? You said it was too broad as worded and needs to be defined. Could that duty be defined in policy and procedures if the amendment passes?

After clause 1. You have to move the amendment.

It should be read into the record, Madam Chair.

On the amendment, I have the greatest of respect to Senator Arnot’s intent in bringing these amendments forward, but I must say I was persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Campbell that the Parks Canada Agency Act already requires the minister to hold a round table biannually. That, no doubt, would include engagement with Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous organizations, representatives of park communities, members of the academic community and representatives of non-profit and non-governmental organizations outlined in Senator Arnot’s amendment. As the witness told us, that’s already in place. Furthermore, the management plan for each park must be tabled to Parliament, and it includes a consultation table. In that respect, the amendment duplicates what is already required. I have some concern about words like “encouraging,” the minister shall encourage public engagement, and about how that would be measured, if not defined.

With the greatest of respect, I’m hesitant about supporting an amendment that the department says is not necessary and is already built into the Parks Canada Act. It’s unfortunate that these aspirational words were not proposed as an amendment to the preamble or an addition to the preamble of the Parks Canada Act. That’s where I think such aspirational words properly belong. As I say, I do respect Senator Arnot’s intention in putting into law the representations of witnesses, but I think it could cause some confusion and uncertainty, and, yes, even litigation, which I don’t think would be helpful. Thank you.

No.

I am aware of Senator McCallum’s amendment, and with your permission, I would like to move her amendment —

Clause 6, page 3.

I would like to speak in support of the proposed amendment.

As Senator McCallum has very clearly outlined, there is a recognition of existing land users who are members of the NunatuKavut Community Council recognized in this amendment in accordance with the 2015 agreement between the Innu Nation, the NunatuKavut and Canada. I understand this amendment addresses the concerns that were clearly expressed by the Innu Nation and the witness Peter Penashue and his legal counsel, Mr. Innes, at our last meeting that the bill as drafted could open up 6,000 NunatuKavut members to be entitled to cabins in the national park. That was a problem that was identified with the bill as it is currently written. This amendment to clause 6 on page 8 eliminates that concern and the recognition of NunatuKavut members as rights holders equal in standing to the Innu Nation.

We heard Mr. Russell assert that NunatuKavut members have rights, but their rights are still to be defined. Mr. Russell talked about a 2019 memorandum of understanding between the NunatuKavut Community Council and former Crown-Indigenous Relations minister Carolyn Bennett, which says that those rights are to be defined with the Crown. That has not yet happened. Mr. Russell was clear that they are at the beginning stages of defining their rights. When and if that happens, their rights may expand. Furthermore, Mr. Russell also made it clear that the expected discussions with existing neighbouring rights holders, the Innu Nation and Nunatsiavut Inuit, still have yet to happen.

It also recognizes that there are existing cabins and tilts owned and occupied by NunatuKavut, and those existing cabins or tilts are recognized in this amendment. It’s just that it won’t be open-ended, allowing 6,000 potential members to build cabins or tilts and, as Senator McCallum has said, significantly interfere with the ecological integrity of the park.

I think this amendment gives the NunatuKavut existing traditional users rights and recognition that they have asked for, but it does not recognize them as rights holders when those rights are still nascent and to be defined between the Crown and the NunatuKavut Community Council in talks going forward. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I’d like to try and be of assistance here.

I believe that Mr. Campbell has said that the description of tilts as “existing tilts” is not quite correct because they are put up but they’re not permanent. It seems to me that they’re unlike cabins. Cabins are “existing;” they stay. But as Senator McCallum has said, the traditional practice may well be to go back to the same site and have a temporary tilt. Those are traditionally used. It seems to me that we could solve the concern expressed by Mr. Campbell by removing the adjective “existing” beside “tilts” in both the last two clauses in lines 30 to 32 in Senator McCallum’s amendment.

I would propose a subamendment to remove the word “existing” from in front of “tilts” in clause (a) of —

I think this has been very helpful. To Senator McCallum’s concern, we have on the record now the senior official from Parks Canada saying that the word “existing” in front of “tilts” would actually limit the traditional users that we do wish to recognize and protect in this legislation. Having heard that, and knowing that it’s on the record and knowing that judges do examine Senate committee transcripts to determine the intent of parliamentarians, I’d like to say that I believe Senator McCallum’s concerns have been addressed by the officials and that eliminating the adjective “existing” in any reference to tilts will actually not limit traditional users, as she was concerned about.

This is her amendment, but I do think it would be helpful to make a subamendment that would remove the word “existing” immediately in front of “tilts” in both sub (a) and sub (b) in Senator McCallum’s amendment, replacing lines 30 to 32. It would remove the words “existing” in front of “tilts” in sub (a) and sub (b), only in reference to tilts, not cabins.

I think Senator Boisvenu has got it right. Following what Senator McCallum stated, I understand that a tilt — sometimes we call it a lean-to in my experience — may be less permanent than a cabin, but the location of a tilt is permanent. That’s where traditional users come every year, even though it’s not a structure like a cabin. In light of that and in light of the representations by the Innu nation, I will withdraw the proposed subamendment deleting the word “existing.” I think the superintendent can clearly sort this out based on his or her knowledge of the traditional users in the park. Thank you.

[Translation]

Question?

A roll call vote.

Yes.

Madam Chair, I think it would be unfortunate if we postpone consideration of this bill today.

What we’ve heard is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Innu Nation know what tilts are. As the definition in French says, because there is no equivalent French word for “tilts,” it is “comment appeler « tilts » à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador” or the common understanding or the common name for “tilts” in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would respectfully say that I don’t believe we need to define “tilts” if everybody knows what it is, and the superintendent knows full well what they are. I’d like to suggest that we continue with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Agreed.

So it is “must” instead of “may”?