A Report of the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development in relation to Northern National Parks
of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples

Chair of the Subcommittee: The Honourable Ione J. Christensen
Deputy Chair of the Subcommittee: The Honourable Ethel M. Cochrane

September 2001

*Ex Officio Member

*Ex Officio Member

The Honourable Senator DeWare also served on the Subcommittee during its study.

Staff from the Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament:
Tonina Simeone.

Staff from the Committees and Private Legislation Directorate:
Lise Bouchard, Administrative Assistant.

Adam Thompson
Clerk of the Committee

Extract of the Journals of the Senate, Tuesday, June 13, 2000:

The Honourable Senator Chalifoux moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Christensen:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to examine and report upon the opportunities to expand economic development, including tourism and employment, associated with National Parks in Northern Canada, within the parameters of existing comprehensive land claim and associated agreements with Aboriginal Peoples and in accordance with the principles of the National Parks Act; and

That the Committee submit its report no later than December 15, 2000.

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Paul C. Bélisle
Clerk of the Senate

Extract of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples of February 27, 2001:

That, upon receipt, the Order of Reference concerning Aboriginal economic development in relation to Northern National Parks be deemed referred to a Subcommittee, composed of the Honourable Senators Chalifoux, Christensen, Cochrane, Johnson and Sibbeston; and

That the Subcommittee be authorized to send for persons, papers and records, whenever required, and to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it.

 

Adam Thompson
Clerk of the Committee

Extract of the Journals of the Senate, Monday, March 12, 2001:

The Honourable Senator Chalifoux moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C.:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to examine and report upon the opportunities to expand economic development, including tourism and employment, associated with National Parks in Northern Canada, within the parameters of existing comprehensive land claim and associated agreements with Aboriginal Peoples and in accordance with the principles of the National Parks Act;

That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject and the work accomplished by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples during the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee submit its final report no later than September 28, 2001.

 

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

 

Paul C. Bélisle
Clerk of the Senate

CHAIRPERSON’S FOREWORD

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

The Need for a New Policy Approach to the North

CHAPTER II

Cooperative Management Regimes: A New Partnership

CHAPTER III

Capacity-Building in Aboriginal Communities

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX

Summary Overview of Northern Parks

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

WITNESSES

In September 2000, the Senate Committee on Aboriginal peoples struck a Subcommittee to investigate and report on Aboriginal economic development in relation to northern National Parks. The role of the Subcommittee was to review what economic opportunities where available to northern Aboriginal peoples in relation to National Parks in northern Canada and to make recommendations on how to improve and expand those opportunities.

Aboriginal people in northern Canada have a unique relationship with our National Park system as they have negociated, or are in the process of negotiating, land claim agreements that include special usage of park lands. The Subcommittee’s main focus was the examination of that special relationship: was it working, and how could it be improved upon as the land claim agreements were being implemented?

Over the course of our meetings in Ottawa, Inuvik, Haines Junction, Whitehorse and Iqaluit we have found that some issues have been resolved but others still face challenges. The Senate Subcommittee is making eight recommendations in order to respond to those challenges. These recommendations reflect the testimony and the needs of northern Aboriginal people involved in this matter.

On behalf of all Subcommittee members, I would like to thank those who took the time to share their views and suggestions through presentations and briefs. Coming to such a committee hearing in the north is often difficult, involving uncertain weather conditions and long flights. Thank you for your efforts, they were greatly appreciated.

I would personally like to thank the Committee members and the staff who worked with us for their long hours of work and dedication.

In closing, I would like to express, on behalf of all members of the Subcommittee, our deepest appreciation for Mr. John Terry’s contribution to the work of this report. Mr. Terry passed away following our northern tour and was not able to see the report completed. He is sadly missed.

The Honourable Ione J. Christensen

Chairperson

Senate Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development in Relation to Northern National Parks of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples

In March 2000, the Panel on Ecological Integrity released a report(1) urging Parks Canada to give clear primacy to its conservation mandate. Panel members were particularly concerned that the ecological integrity of National Parks, such as Banff and Jasper, were being seriously eroded due to commercial growth and overuse. In response to the Panel’s recommendations, the Minster of Canadian Heritage made a commitment to make conservation the top priority of the Canadian National Park system. The new Canada National Parks Act reflects this direction. It requires that the "maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity" be the first priority of the Minister. The Panel’s report, however, focussed almost exclusively on issues surrounding southern National Parks. It ignores the new reality of Northern Parks where Canada's Aboriginal people are part of the development and management of these areas. This report of the Senate Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development is, in part, intended to address this gap.

It is important to understand that the legal, historical and constitutional context within which northern National Parks have been established is distinct from those in the south. These differences must be appreciated. Specifically, several of the northern National Parks have been established as a result of constitutionally-protected comprehensive land claim agreements (Please see appendix for a summary overview of northern National Parks). Embedded in those agreements are provisions for economic opportunities as well as the establishment of co-operative management regimes. Most Aboriginal beneficiaries in the north interpret these co-operative management regimes as guaranteeing full participation in the management and decision-making of both the conservation and development of their traditional lands. As Aboriginal groups in the south begin to negotiate cooperative or co-management arrangements, it is expected that these agreements will have a significant impact on the direction that southern Parks will take as well. As we shall see later in this report, the varying interpretations of 'co-operative' as opposed to 'co-management' regimes have created certain difficulties in the implementation of these joint park planning and management processes. Finally, unlike the south, northern National Parks are remote and often difficult to access. While the Panel on Ecological Integrity expressed legitimate concerns with the effects of traffic and tourism on the ecological integrity of southern parks, the reality for northern National Parks is very different with regard to management structures, tourism use and accessibility.

During the course of its northern hearings, members of the Subcommittee were made aware of these differences by several Aboriginal groups and northerners. This report endeavours to highlight some of their concerns and identify issues unique to the operation of National Parks in Canada’s three northern territories. The Subcommittee also hopes to underscore the need to understand and respect the different legal and constitutional frameworks within which these parks operate and, in particular, the very real partnership that this new context has created between Aboriginal groups and Parks Canada. Specifically, the northern National Parks examined in this report have evolved in the context of the current land claim agreement process. First Nations and Inuit negotiated ownership and control over certain areas of their traditional lands as part of those final agreements. From their perspective, they have agreed to share authority over the management of their lands mutually recognized as unique and worthy of protection as National Parks; lands that can be enjoyed by all Canadians as part of a rich natural heritage.

This report originates from a request by Parks Canada that the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples "examine and report upon the opportunities to expand economic development, including tourism and employment, associated with National Parks in Northern Canada, within the parameters of existing comprehensive land claim agreements with Aboriginal Peoples and in accordance with the principles of the National Parks Act." In order to meet the obligations set out in the final agreements and provide economic benefits to Aboriginal people, we strongly recommend Parks Canada implement the findings contained in this report.

 CHAPTER I

One of the central themes to emerge from the Subcommittee’s northern hearings is the need for Parks Canada to take a more flexible approach in its application of Parks policy in relation to northern National Parks. The Subcommittee heard from many witnesses that while it is understandable for Parks Canada to want to have policies that apply across the national system of parks, its increasing emphasis on conservation at the expense of economic development reflects southern-based concerns that are inappropriate in the northern context at this time. In particular, the Subcommittee was told that Northern National Parks could support tourism activity to a much greater extent than they currently do without any noticeable threat to the environment. Having said this, the Subcommittee acknowledges that the ecological environment in the north is much more fragile and vulnerable to human activity than it is in southern Canadian National Parks. Consequently, as tourism continues to grow and develop in these areas, it is critical to learn from the environmental pressures experienced in southern parks and plan accordingly in the north in order that similar problems are not inherited or repeated. 

This growing emphasis on conservation, we were told, however, reflected a southern view of Parks as "exclusive preserves" and has resulted in an overly restrictive approach by Parks officials toward park management, thereby frustrating the ability of Aboriginal groups and organizations to take advantage of the economic opportunities contained in their land claim agreements. Time and again members of the Subcommittee were informed by witnesses of instances where their efforts to capitalize on the economic benefits associated with parks were hindered by Parks Canada. For instance, Nellie Cournoyea, Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, told the Subcommittee that this restrictive approach has meant the loss of economic benefits for their community, such as the inability to set up tent frames or take visitors on day trips within park boundaries: (2)

...it has been a serious disappointment for the Inuvaluit Regional Corporation as representative of the Inuvialuit beneficiaries that these economic opportunities have not materialized, that indeed Parks Canada has frustrated achievement of these goals that we understand to be central to these agreements. We have seen this in extremely restrictive Parks management plans, combined with Parks policy, that limit visitor access, even in the very short tourist season, that prevent visitor access to the most impressive parts of the Park, giving the attitude that these parks are exclusive preserves. Parks policy has even begun to impinge upon our efforts to promote renewable resource economic activities. Without economic opportunities, Inuvialuit can neither participate in the northern economy or sustain our communities. In setting aside such large areas for national park status, Inuvialuit have foregone very significant potential for economic opportunity that would otherwise be possible through development of non-renewable resources, in particular minerals and oil and gas. Having set aside these areas and thereby help[ed] the federal government to meet its protective priorities, we believe there is an onus on the government to ensure that these National Parks provide alternate economic opportunities for the Inuvialuit.

Members of the Subcommittee were struck by the consistency of this view, a view echoed by witnesses in each of the territories, both by Aboriginal organizations and by representatives of the three territorial governments. It is clear to the Subcommittee that a strong sentiment exists among the witnesses heard that Parks Canada has applied a southern-based policy approach without fully appreciating or considering the differences that exist in the north. While the emphasis on conservation is prudent and required for parks in southern Canada, the Subcommittee heard from witnesses that it is unlikely current and projected levels of visitation to northern National Parks threaten to have similar impacts on their ecological integrity. Although there is a need to balance economic development and tourism with conservation, clearly Aboriginal groups view the establishment of National Parks as not only a means of protecting these special places, but also as a means of encouraging economic development in their settlement regions. Moreover, Aboriginal people see themselves as an integral part of the park ecology. Parks, on this view, are considered working spaces and not exclusively natural preserves. The location of these parks and the shortness of the season is such that even with the development of some facilities, the visitation potential is still only a few hundred people a year. Such a small number of visitors can be easily managed to avoid harm to wildlife and habitat, but would have substantial benefit to the local economy, creating employment and other economic opportunities. 

Suggestions were made by some witnesses that in order to accommodate the interests and concerns of communities in the north, northern National Parks might be better served if they were operated by a separate agency or at least an independent branch in the Parks Canada Agency that would be free to adopt its own policies, rather than being directed by policies applied to southern parks. One witness told the Subcommittee "we would argue that there is a stronger chance that if you have the regional headquarters here, or substantial presence here, you are going to get more sensitivity to the interests of northern Canada and northern priorities". 

The Subcommittee would agree that this issue, if left unaddressed, risks damaging other facets of the relationship between Parks Canada officials and Aboriginal groups in the north. In particular, members were made aware that the tendency toward the uniform application of parks policy undermined the substantial economic commitments and cooperative management processes negotiated in the land claim agreements. Nellie Cournoyea captured this point in her testimony before the Subcommittee: 

[t]he Inuvialuit Final Agreement is a constitutionally-protected land claim agreement and it is time for Parks Canada to pay proper respect to the Inuvialuit economic and cultural interests, not just to take advantage of the Inuvialuit dedication to conservation as sustainable development and advance a southern philosophy to National Parks.

In its follow-up hearings with Parks Canada, the Subcommittee relayed the importance of these concerns to Mr. Tom Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency. He was asked whether greater flexibility toward the management and operation of northern National Parks, both to meet the economic objectives set out in the land claim agreements and to honour the spirit and intent of those agreements, could be met under existing policy and legislation. Mr. Lee told the Subcommittee that the existing policy framework did in fact contain the flexibility required to account for the unique environment under which northern National Parks operate and a statement clarifying the application of policies with regard to the north would be issued. . On 16 August 2001, Mr. Lee did provide members of the Subcommittee with a Draft Statement of Principles regarding the Establishment and Operation of Northern National Parks and National Historic Sites. While the Subcommittee welcomes this undertaking, this step alone is insufficient to produce the necessary changes in attitude, which will affect the manner in which policy is applied. We believe it is crucial that the draft statement issued by Parks Canada must consider the views of northern Aboriginal organizations. Over the years Parks staff have displayed an exemplary dedication to the protection of National Parks, but the new legal and constitutional environment created through land claim agreements with Aboriginal people in the north will require extensive retraining of staff. Accordingly, we recommend that:

1. Recommendation: Existing Staff Education 

Parks Canada, in consultation with northern Aboriginal organizations and park management boards in the north, issue a statement of principles clarifying the application of Parks policy toward northern National Parks by March 2002. As well, convene a series of educational workshops for all Field Unit staff who are, or may be, working in the north to ensure that Parks staff understand the legal and constitutional framework within which northern Parks have been created and operate as well as the obligations set out in applicable land claim agreements. 

Cooperative Management Regimes: A New Partnership 

A significant feature of National Parks established through comprehensive land claim agreements in northern Canada is the creation of joint park planning and management processes. As mentioned earlier, embedded in these final agreements are cooperative management regimes which essentially set out a new working relationship between Parks Canada and northern Aboriginal groups; one that is based on a shared decision-making model with regard to the operation and management of parks. However, there is a stark difference between cooperative management and co-management. For the most part, Aboriginal people see these agreements as establishing "co-management" and not strictly speaking "cooperative management" regimes. This interpretive difference has led to, in some cases, unattainable expectations and disappointment. Whereas co-management denotes equal partners, cooperative management leaves the final decision-making authority with Parks Canada. How these emerging partnerships are working themselves out is an issue of great interest to the Subcommittee. 

Generally, cooperative management boards and/or advisory councils have the authority to make recommendations to the Minister on matters pertaining to the development and management of the park. Recommendations and guidelines are normally set out in park management plans. The composition of these boards includes an equal number of Aboriginal and Parks Canada representatives. In all cases, the Minister retains final authority to approve or reject recommendations contained in park management plans. 

The Subcommittee is aware that cooperative management arrangements vary somewhat depending on the circumstances under which the final agreements were negotiated and is sensitive to the fact that, in several instances, these processes are still fairly new and therefore a definitive evaluation may be premature. That being said, however, there appears to be a general consensus among the witnesses heard that: 

1. Some Aboriginal groups are prevented from taking a legitimate part in, and consultation on, issues concerning park management by a lack of funds and capacity; and
2. Parks Canada representatives who sit on these boards must appreciate that Aboriginal people see themselves as full and equal participants in the decision-making process.

In our opinion, it is unlikely that the cooperative management processes set out in the final agreements can be truly effective until these two fundamental issues are first addressed. 

Members of the Subcommittee were concerned that Aboriginal communities, already taxed by other pressing social and economic priorities, are prevented from becoming full and active partners in parks management and planning due to budgetary constraints. Members of the Kluane Park Management Board expressed their frustration at not having the financial resources necessary to participate in any meaningful way in the management of Kluane National Park despite the fact that the Champagne and Aishihik Final Agreement sets out these cooperative management structures. Similar concerns were expressed by representatives of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation and other Aboriginal representatives. 

Members of the Subcommittee believe that Parks Canada must be cognizant that its obligations under these final agreements commit the agency to ensuring that the cooperative management processes established thereunder, as well as the economic objectives set out in park management plans, are not then rendered ineffective by a lack of funds.

Specifically, the Subcommittee recommends that: 

2. Recommendation: Co-operative Management Boards (following the terms set out in the Final Land Claim Agreements) 

Parks Canada review current funding levels provided to respective park management boards and advisory councils, including an assessment of their existing and future needs, and undertake to ensure that adequate funding for these boards be made available as soon as possible. Parks Canada should provide the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development with the results of its review and outline what steps it can expect the government to take with respect to future budgetary commitments no later than March 2002. 

In addition to having inadequate levels of funding in order to effectively participate in cooperative management boards, some witnesses told the Subcommittee that training was also necessary in order for representatives sitting on these boards to understand their respective roles, responsibilities and be better able to deal with issues as they arise. "These relations are complex" Rob Lewis, Superintendent of the Parks Canada Western Arctic Field Unit, told the Subcommittee when discussing the Vuntut Gwich’in cooperative management regime. "They are outlined in the claim. And we found that it has been helpful for us to sit down as governments with the North Yukon Renewable Resources Council and further define our roles and responsibilities through a cooperation agreement. It’s an agreement that we renew on a cyclical basis to make sure that the claim provisions are fresh in our minds as well as our roles and responsibilities." 

Generally speaking, the development of cooperative management boards associated with northern National Parks is to some extent still in its early stages, particularly in the Yukon and Nunavut regions, where relevant parks-related agreements have only recently been concluded. In light of this, the Subcommittee feels that the strategy adopted by the Vuntut Gwich’in First Nation and Western Arctic Field Unit in developing cooperation agreements which attempt to clarify the cooperative management structures and participants’ roles and responsibilities has substantial merit. We therefore recommend that in order to enhance the effectiveness of existing cooperative management mechanisms:

Those with a long history of working in southern Parks have a greater tendency toward a unitary management approach. In the north there is a new way of doing things where Aboriginal peoples are meaningful partners in park planning and management. Witnesses told the Subcommittee of the need for Parks Canada personnel to re-examine their customary approach to managing National Parks. They have expressed concerns that Parks Canada has not clearly understood the fundamental shift that has taken place with respect to park management as a result of obligations and processes created under existing land claim agreements. Moreover, Aboriginal people feel that they should not have to plead with Parks Canada to be equal partners in the decision-making processes that affect their traditional lands. Nellie Cournoyea expressed this sentiment as follows: 

"Because of the claim, if there had been no provision for parks we would have more authority over the land. So it is as though we got a claim and then we gave the land back to Canada and we get criticized a lot from our people saying "why did you do that? You spent nine years negotiating a claim and then you go and give it back to Canada, only then to have to beg to be managers in the park". 

This is a very telling statement and is at the core of many of the joint management issues confronting the operation of Northern Parks. The Subcommittee agrees that an attitudinal shift must occur if the substantive commitments contained in the final agreements toward shared management are to be realized. Accordingly, members of the Subcommittee recommend that:

Parks Canada convene a taskforce of relevant Field Unit staff and Aboriginal representatives to study a renewed management approach to northern National Parks more closely aligned with the establishment of cooperative management processes based on the principles of equal and shared management of those parks. This taskforce provide this Committee with a progress report by September 2002 and the results of its work should be included in the Report on Plans and Priorities and in its Departmental Performance Report in 2002.

 

Members of the Subcommittee also wish to note that while greater movement toward substantive co-management arrangements is the ideal and desired objective, it does appreciate the fact that the establishment of cooperative management processes has nonetheless been a positive development. In a follow-up letter to the Subcommittee dated 14 May 2001, Ken Anderson, Chair of the Kluane Park Management Board, stated, for instance, that these arrangements have resulted in an "unprecedented level of public consultation and involvement" and although Board members have experienced some frustration, generally, "the exercise has proven to be a venue to experience the benefits of a cooperative and inclusive process". 

We wish to underline the importance of creating a true partnership in the north where land claim settlements have been finalized. Comprehensive land claim agreements are modern treaties that arise from the assertion of continuing Aboriginal rights to land in those areas of Canada where treaties had not been signed. From a political perspective they serve to replace an outmoded and offensive colonial framework. 

Aboriginal people interpret Aboriginal rights to include a broad range of economic, political and social factors including ownership of land and resources, cultural rights, legal recognition of customary law and the right to self-government. Land claim agreements not only set out these rights, but they also reflect a new relationship between Aboriginal people and Canada. The difference between a cooperative as opposed to a co-managed approach to the operation of northern National Parks, from an Aboriginal perspective, is therefore not simply a semantic one. Aboriginal people see themselves as full, meaningful and equal partners in the management of these National Parks. They also have a strong spiritual and cultural attachment to their traditional lands from which these parks have been carved. It is therefore crucial that a corresponding shift in attitude by Parks Canada occur, one reflecting this new relationship, if a true partnership with Aboriginal people in the north is ever to be realized.

 CHAPTER III

Capacity-Building in Aboriginal Communities 

Another critical theme to emerge from the Subcommittee’s northern hearings is the need for greater capacity-building initiatives in Aboriginal communities. The objective of capacity-building measures is to address the ability of Aboriginal communities in northern Canada to participate meaningfully in decision-making processes and take advantage of the economic opportunities associated with National Parks. In particular, witnesses identified three areas where such measures were needed: 

1. Education and training;
2. Infrastructure; and
3. Tourism-related activities.

These areas are interconnected in many ways. For example, investment in upgrading or developing community infrastructure boosts tourism potential in the area. Establishing training and education programs in turn assists communities in developing appropriate businesses and in obtaining the necessary training in order for them to take advantage of the economic opportunities associated with National Parks, including tourism.

Education and Training 

As mentioned earlier, the land claim agreements considered by the Subcommittee each respectively contains provisions for economic benefits associated with park establishment in settlement regions. For instance, in addition to employment opportunities, these agreements also include rights of first refusal on contracts and concessions, a percentage of allocation of certain park business licenses and other affirmative measures. However, several witnesses told the Subcommittee that Aboriginal communities in the north often lack the skills and training necessary to benefit from those economic opportunities. In Nunavut, for instance, John MacDougall of the Qiqiktani Inuit Association told the Subcommittee that: 

"At this stage training is about the highest priority of all organizations and in all our projects. The one thing we need to encourage the most is training more people so that they can get these jobs which are available. If there is a qualified Inuit person, then that person can say they almost have a right to that job. So it’s a matter of getting more qualifications." 

The Subcommittee was pleased to note that Parks Canada has begun making serious efforts in the training of Aboriginal people, and more specifically, in providing better pathways into management positions. The Aboriginal Employment Strategy produced largely in response to (i) the recognition that Aboriginal people were inadequately represented in Parks Canada, and other federal departments and organizations (ii) the findings of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that improvements were required in Parks Canada’s approach to recruitment and retention of Aboriginal people and (iii) land claim obligations, we believe is a positive development. As well, the Aboriginal Leadership Development Program is helping to develop a cadre of Aboriginal leaders throughout the Parks Canada organization. We feel such programs have considerable merit and should be continued, evaluated and monitored for their effectiveness. 

Parks Canada, it should be noted, can offer only limited direct employment to Aboriginal people in northern communities and must confront the challenge of being able to recruit and retain qualified individuals who may be lured by higher paying jobs in other areas; notably the oil and gas and government sectors. Notwithstanding the presence of National Parks, the Agency, cannot by itself, meet the full range of economic needs of any one group or community. The very nature of the north, currently with a limited tourist season, requires a diverse economic base. To date, then, many of the economic opportunities offered by northern National Parks have tended to be seasonal. 

Despite the challenge of competing with other sectors for qualified Aboriginal personnel, the Subcommittee feels strongly that Parks Canada is uniquely positioned to perform an important social function. It can provide northern Aboriginal communities that are badly in need of human resource development, particularly Aboriginal youth, vital education and training opportunities. Accordingly, we recommend that:

5. Recommendation: Employment Opportunities for Aboriginal People 

Parks Canada open its Parks staff training courses to all interested Aboriginal people in the north, thereby supporting Aboriginal employment and assisting Aboriginal youth become more qualified for jobs inside and outside the Parks system.

 

In addition to these national employment strategies, members of the Subcommittee were particularly interested in learning about several local initiatives. In Inuvik, we learned of a two-year eco-tourism course offered to Aboriginal youth, as well as the establishment of an outdoor equipment library by the Parks Canada Western Arctic Field Unit that schools or recreational groups can access for training or various recreational pursuits. In addition, we heard about training programs being developed for guiding, outfitting, and rafting throughout the territories. We were told by witnesses who have been involved in such programs that, when available, this type of training helped them to start up businesses, allowing them to take advantage of the economic opportunities associated with National Parks. Although beneficial, testimony given before the Subcommittee suggests that there is limited funding available for such programs and that such initiatives are most often implemented on an ad hoc basis. 

We believe that local initiatives such as these address some of the concerns raised by witnesses that others, particularly southern-based companies, are coming in and benefiting from the economic opportunities associated with parks due to limited local community capacity. Southern commercial operators operate year-round and can offer a variety of tourism packages to a number of locations in Canada and other parts of the world. Members were also told that while some outside commercial operators did offer guide training programs, employment was not well remunerated, with trainees often not getting paid the first year. Consequently, the importance of supporting these local initiatives should not be underestimated. Moreover, education and employment for youth is a priority with many Aboriginal communities in northern Canada who tend to have small, relatively young populations with low levels of education. We were therefore pleased to hear from Parks Canada officials that they appreciate the importance of investing in education and training: 

We are partners in developing these opportunities, the community employment and training opportunities, and we take the role very seriously; and for the most part we have been looking at it primarily from the point of view of what we can do to assist the school children and others in getting their training and improving their educational levels, and what kind of environment we can provide to people like air charter companies so that they can go about their business and be successful. 

We are, however, concerned that Parks Canada may not have the capacity to deliver on many of its earlier promises due to declining budgets. To enable Aboriginal people to obtain the qualifications to fill park positions and take advantage of other related economic opportunities, Parks Canada, other federal departments and territorial governments need to invest in education and training more aggressively. In most northern communities, the major benefit from Parks currently comes from the direct expenditure on salaries and the purchase of goods and services. It is critical, therefore, that funding levels be stabilized and restored. Members of the Subcommittee feel very strongly that it is the responsibility of the federal government to implement land claim provisions, including those related to Aboriginal employment and economic development in National Parks. In order for these obligations to be realized in any substantive way it is imperative that public investment in the areas of education and training be a priority for Parks Canada and the federal government. Accordingly, we recommend that:

Funds be allocated as soon as possible for investment in local capacity-building initiatives, particularly in the areas of community employment and training, so that such initiatives may be made more consistently available and/or expanded upon and (ii) Parks Canada work more aggressively with territorial governments to coordinate investment in these strategic areas while avoiding any duplication or overlap. 

In addition to the views that Parks Canada should support local capacity-building initiatives through investment in education and training in order to improve the employment outlook in Aboriginal communities, the Subcommittee heard evidence that the Agency’s existing hiring practices must also be reviewed for cultural biases in order that barriers to systemic discrimination be removed. 

This is particularly germane in the north where the informal education system can be just as important, if not at times more important than a formal education, particularly in the areas of community and cultural awareness as well as knowledge of the environmental characteristics of the settlement area. Derek Rasmussen, of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, told the Subcommittee, when discussing the Inuit Employment Plan, that implementing more culturally appropriate hiring practices would result in a much different employment picture in the north: 

That section [Inuit Employment Plan] says that they should remove systematic discrimination, including removing artificially inflated education requirements, ones that may have been important at one time but are not necessary for this particular park or this particular job. I think it is going to take a fair bit of soul-searching and analysis as to how we set up these job descriptions. But in the north, there is a formal education system, but there is an enormous informal education system. The informal education system which captures that other set of categories, is just as important as the formal education system. So if that set of requirements was introduced and all government departments actually recognized these skills in developing their qualification criteria it would make an enormous difference. At the moment the only thing the government tends to do is mention fluency in Inuktitut. If we put those other requirements in every ad for every Parks person, I tell you we’re going to have a lot different applicants coming forth, because all of a sudden somebody who may not have a B.A. but has all the other stuff looks very good on paper in comparison. 

Accordingly, members of the Subcommittee recommend that:

7. Recommendation: Hiring Practices 

Parks Canada undertake a comprehensive review of current hiring practices in the north to ensure that procedures are culturally appropriate and that any existing barriers to systemic discrimination be removed, and provide the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development with a clear statement of how it intends to undertake this review, what timeframe the Subcommittee can expect Parks Canada to follow, and what process this review will take. 

The Conference Board of Canada recently released a comprehensive economic profile and examination of the Nunavut economy. Among the economic opportunities identified for continued economic growth in the region, tourism was ranked second only behind mineral development: 

While sports hunting and fishing will continue to play an important role in the tourism industry there are many types of tourism that are growing and playing a greater role in Nunavut. These include "adventure" tourism products (canoeing/kayaking, hiking, etc.), cultural tourism, nature based tourism (Eco-Tourism), educational tourism and other specialized tourism products. (3)

This economic outlook is remarkably similar for each of Canada’s three northern territories. In fact, Canada now ranks as one of the top ten countries in tourism earnings and top five for annual growth. According to the Conference Board of Canada, tourism is a growing industry in the north and can play a greater role in driving future economic growth and providing jobs for residents in local communities. 

We know from research done by the Canadian Tourism Commission as well as by Parks Canada that National Parks are a significant draw for tourists because they view Canadian Parks as unspoiled, pristine and untouched country. In the north, tourists come as much for the cultural experience as they do for the natural environment. Witnesses cautioned, however, that tourism development must be sustainable, culturally and socially relevant and ultimately must provide local economic benefits to the communities. 

Several witnesses told the Subcommittee that the growth in tourism activity must be handled carefully in the north so as not to overwhelm communities that wish to protect the integrity of their cultural and natural environments and that at present have limited local capacity to support too rapid a growth in this area. The growing cruise ship industry is an area of some concern in this regard. "Cruise ship passengers spend approximately $5, 000 per community visit on arts and crafts, food and interpretive events. As changes in climate and the effects of global warming make northern waters more navigable, the number of cruises will likely increase in the future and with it the demand for tourism products such as town tours, cultural performances and arts and crafts sales"(4). There is, however, some resistance to relying too heavily on this specialized tourism market. "Instead there is discussion" as Derek Rasmussen told Subcommittee members "of how best to use existing infrastructure, the small infrastructure we have year-round. We don’t want 5000 people coming when we’ve only got 100 rooms. We wouldn’t mind 5000 people coming over 365 days that would give us an economically consistent industry. You don’t want to develop something that relies on having 5000 cruise ship passengers coming in for the day, because if petroleum costs go up, these boats won’t be coming in at all and we’ll have a bunch of empty boutiques on Main Street." 

It is important that tourism development be planned and managed locally. Witnesses told the Subcommittee that opportunities to expand the shoulder seasons and encourage winter tourism are perhaps more appropriate than simply trying to attract a large number of visitors within the short summer season. In this sense, tourism activity is looked upon as part of a "mixed-economy" complementing other traditional land-based activities throughout the year. As the report of the Conference Board of Canada concludes, "not all societal decisions" in northern Aboriginal communities "are made on the basis of economic optimisation. Attachment to land and to community is a strong attribute fundamental to many societies. Individuals may be willing to sacrifice some material aspects of well-being in order to achieve other goods, such as personal freedom or cultural maintenance.(5)" Consequently, Parks Canada and territorial governments need to continue to work with First Nations and Inuit to identify appropriate tourism products and services that build upon the presence of National Parks in a manner consistent with the social goals of the respective communities. 

While investment in human resource development and social capital is critical to developing local capacity, regional economic growth also depends, in large measure, upon investment in a community’s physical infrastructure. In many of the Aboriginal communities adjacent to northern National Parks, adequate infrastructure that would attract and support visitor use is simply not there. In addition, what infrastructure is there is often old and in need of significant repair and upgrading, as is the case for instance with the Visitor Centre in Haines Junction. 

Parks Canada has experienced significant budget reductions that have affected its ability to develop or maintain infrastructure that would support sustainable tourism development in those adjacent communities. Infrastructure needs include such things as trails, interpretation sites, cultural or visitor reception centres, rest areas and campgrounds. The Subcommittee supports the view that Parks Canada and the federal government need to reinvest in National Parks to improve infrastructure and upgrade displays and programs at visitor reception centres. 

The need for appropriate infrastructure in order for northern Aboriginal communities to be able to handle tourism and other forms of economic development is critical to their economic outlook. Infrastructure development, such as the recent opening of a community complex in Paulatuk, assisted by a major federal capital contribution, which houses Parks Canada offices, a store, hotel and some private office space provides significant benefits to the local economy.(6) Witnesses stressed the importance of establishing other similar types of community facilities, such as visitor reception or cultural centres, as critical components for tourism development that would generally benefit the community. It is important that any new development, such as the Paulatuk community complex, not only meet the needs of Parks Canada but also the needs of the community year round. In this sense, infrastructure development must do double duty in that, it must: 

· provide year-round employment;
· complement Parks’ interpretive programs;
· support relevant training opportunities;
· provide a gateway experience to tourists coming into their traditional lands;
· provide a place to present their history and culture to Canadians and their own communities. 

With regard to the relationship between infrastructure and successful tourism development, one witness told the Subcommittee that, 

When we meet with the federal government, we always push the fact that we have an emerging industry in a developing region of Canada. That requires a different set of rules from southern Canada, where all programs and services are based on a sophisticated industry. Up here we are looking for investment. That means providing money for things like interpretive centres, cultural centres, visitor centres. Whether they are Parks-owned or government owned or tourism-owned, there is a real need for that basic infrastructure. 

We appreciate the high costs of constructing such facilities in the north and welcome efforts by Parks Canada to work cooperatively with other departments and governments in establishing and operating visitor reception and cultural centres. We note, for example, the shared reception centres in Haines Junction and Dawson City and a possible partnership with the Yukon government concerning a Parks Canada Visitor Reception center in Old Crow that is currently being explored. Public investment in infrastructure is critical, whether it is done through direct government financing or partnership funds. 

Accordingly, members of the Subcommittee strongly recommend that:

 

 CONCLUSION

Aboriginal peoples recognize the land set aside as National Parks in their traditional territories as special and sacred places. In Canada’s north, Aboriginal peoples are an integral part of the ecosystem and their connection to the land has shaped it as much as the wind and water. Indeed, "[t]he naturalized knowledge, and traditional uses, culture and values of Aboriginal peoples," as the Panel on Ecological Integrity noted, "were once as much a part of the ecosystems as water, vegetation, landscape or wildlife." 

National Parks are also a nation’s heirlooms, preserving a great natural diversity for all Canadians and for future generations to enjoy. Aboriginal peoples have understood the importance of protecting these areas and have contributed greatly to the National Parks system in Canada by agreeing to set aside significant parts of their traditional lands as parks as well as by entering into cooperative management arrangements with the Government of Canada. We owe them a debt of gratitude for helping to preserve and expand these sacred places that are dear to all Canadians.

There is, to be sure, a solemn responsibility to ensure that the ecological integrity of parks in this country is preserved, restored and maintained. Certainly, National Parks are not intended principally as economic engines, and any economic activity associated with parks should respect the integrity of the natural ecosystems of these areas. Yet safeguarding this principle does not mean that thoughtful and collaborative efforts to identify appropriate economic activities in relation to northern National Parks should not, or cannot, occur. Indeed, evidence presented to members of the Subcommittee identified several economic objectives that could be reasonably pursued without undermining the ecological integrity of these special places.

It should be remembered, moreover, that these areas have a deep spiritual significance for Aboriginal people. This profound relationship to, and understanding of, the land is a key element that runs though the lives of Aboriginal communities across the country, and certainly among the witnesses we heard from in the north. There is a strong sense among Aboriginal peoples in northern Canada of wanting to preserve the natural and cultural components of these sacred lands – lands which they depend upon for their survival and well-being - while searching for appropriate ways to benefit economically from the presence of parks in their communities. Joint stewardship of these areas, which combines existing technologies with the extensive traditional knowledge of Aboriginal people, helps to preserve the land’s ecological integrity and respects the aspirations of Aboriginal peoples.

In the past, Aboriginal people have been inadequately involved or consulted in the management of their traditional lands and this lack of participation has resulted in tension and mistrust among Aboriginal communities and government. Several Aboriginal witnesses who felt that Parks Canada continued to operate northern National Parks in a monocultural fashion expressed that mistrust to members of the Subcommittee. As we noted earlier in this report, if there is to be a true and equitable partnership in the co-management of these areas, policy-makers and administrators must not only be sensitive to Aboriginal perspectives and aspirations, but must begin to incorporate their approaches and perspectives in new policies and plans. What is certain is that the single-group management of resources is no longer a viable option. In this respect, Parks Canada must work to overcome certain corporate and attitudinal barriers in order to begin to build relationships that reflect a stronger commitment to forging partnerships with Aboriginal peoples in the north. The Subcommittee hopes this report will help contribute to that important process. 

Source: Mary C. Hurley, Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament, 6 July 2000.

 

(i) The information in the chart was assembled, for ease of reference, from documents provided by Parks Canada officials.

(ii)All northern National Parks listed are wilderness parks.

(iii)Park Management plans under the applicable land claim agreements conform to National Parks policy. Note that different IBAs or park agreements may also contain provisions for other agreements or plans, e.g., economic or community development plans.

(iv)The figures shown are the most recent available.

(v)With respect to the Kluane National Park Reserve, the land claim of the Kluane First Nation has yet to be settled under the 1993 Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement.

(vi)The Smith’s Landing and Salt River First Nations formerly belonged to the group known as the Chipewyan Indians of Slave River, who adhered to Treaty 8 in 1899. In May 2000, the Smith’s Landing First Nation signed a land claim settlement agreement arising from longstanding obligations under that treaty. As part of the settlement, the agreement entitles the SLFN to 1,000 hectares of land within the Alberta portion of WBNP. In addition, the Salt River First Nation is engaged in negotiations with Canada to settle outstanding land provisions in Treaty 8, and has requested reserve land within the NWT portion of WBNP. The federal government agreed to consider treaty land entitlement selections in WBNP because both First Nations had requested land under Treaty 8 prior to the establishment of WBNP in 1922. Bill C-27 provides for the withdrawal of lands from WBNP for these purposes.

(vii)Relatively high staffing at Wood Buffalo National Park reflects the need for significant fire suppression capabilities.

(viii)The WMAC (NWT) was established by the IFA, subsection 14(45).

(ix)Parks Canada is interested in expanding the park’s boundaries to include lands within both the settlement area under the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and Nunavut.

(x)According to Parks Canada documents provided to the Committee, the Deh Cho First Nation and Canada are engaged in a process for the development of an interim measures agreement, pending completion of a negotiated settlement.

(xi)Auyuittuq was established as a National Park Reserve in 1976.

(xii)One Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement was concluded for the three Nunavut National Parks. The three National Parks in Nunavut would be officially established upon enactment of Bill C-27, An Act respecting the National Parks of Canada, which is currently before Parliament.

(xiii)Both Auyuittuq National Park Reserve and Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve have had Park Advisory Committees which are to be disbanded in Summer 2000 and replaced by the JPMC under the terms of the IIBA.

(xiv)The Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve, now Quttinirpaaq, was established in 1986.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

Parks Canada, in consultation with northern Aboriginal organizations and park management boards in the north, issue a statement of principles clarifying the application of Parks policy toward northern National Parks by March 2002. As well, convene a series of educational workshops for all Field Unit staff who are, or may be, working in the north to ensure that Parks staff understand the legal and constitutional framework within which northern Parks have been created and operate as well as the obligations set out in applicable land claim agreements.

 

Parks Canada review current funding levels provided to respective park management boards and advisory councils, including an assessment of their existing and future needs, and undertake to ensure that adequate funding for these boards be made available as soon as possible. Parks Canada should provide the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development with the results of its review and what steps it can expect the government to take with respect to future budgetary commitments no later than March 2002.

 

• Workshops be conducted to instruct Parks Canada personnel on these new co-operative management decision-making processes.
• Parks Canada work with Aboriginal groups to develop co-operation agreements that further clarify and define the roles and responsibilities of the participants.
• Appropriate mentoring and training programs for Aboriginal representatives who sit on co-operative park management boards be developed.

Parks Canada convene a taskforce of relevant Field Unit staff and Aboriginal representatives to study a renewed management approach to northern National Parks more closely aligned with the establishment of cooperative management processes based on the principles of equal and shared management of those parks. This taskforce provide this Committee with a progress report by September 2002 and the results of its work should be included in the Report on Plans and Priorities and in its Departmental Performance Report in 2002.

 

Parks Canada open its Parks staff training courses to all interested Aboriginal people in the north, thereby supporting Aboriginal employment and assisting Aboriginal youth become more qualified for jobs inside and outside the Parks system.

 

Funds be allocated as soon as possible for investment in local capacity-building initiatives, particularly in the areas of community employment and training, so that such initiatives may be made more consistently available and/or expanded upon and (ii) Parks Canada work more aggressively with territorial governments to coordinate investment in these strategic areas while avoiding any duplication or overlap.

 

Parks Canada undertake a comprehensive review of current hiring practices in the north to ensure that procedures are culturally appropriate and that any existing barriers to systemic discrimination be removed, and provide the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development with a clear statement of how it intends to undertake this review, what timeframe the Subcommittee can expect Parks Canada to follow, and what process this review will take.

 

 

• Funds be allocated as soon as possible for investment in appropriate types of community facilities to assist in stimulating tourism and economic development.
• Parks Canada evaluate the benefits derived by the community and Parks Canada as a result of the major federal contribution made to the development of the Paulatuk Community Complex and include the results of this evaluation process in future planned developments.
• Parks Canada create an expert panel including representatives of Aboriginal organizations, territorial governments, businesses, local communities and other relevant federal departments to provide an ongoing forum for dialogue and information-sharing over ways and means of developing possible partnerships for infrastructure development.

James Pokiak

Nellie Cournoyea, Chair & CEO

Duane West, Superintendent, Kluane National Park

Robin Bradash, Chief Land Negotiator

Chief Bob Charlie;
Lawrence Joe, Director, Lands and Resources; and
Paul Birckel, Past Chief

Mike Kenny, Local Economic Development Coordinator

Juri Peepre

Lindsay Staples

Neil Hartling

Gela Pitsiula

Lootie Toomasie, Mayor

From the Canadian Nature Federation: 

Notes

(1) Parks Canada Agency, "Unimpaired for Future Generations?". Setting a New Direction for Canada’s National Parks, Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks (Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2000).

(2) The Subcommittee on Aboriginal Economic Development conducted a series of fact-finding sessions over two weeks in the three territories of Nunavut, the Yukon and Northwest Territories. These were not official hearings and, as a result, transcripts of those meetings are not available. Consequently, quotes appearing in this report have been extracted from notes taken throughout the course of those hearings but can not be attributed directly to a publicly available source.

(3) The Conference Board of Canada, Nunavut Economic Outlook: An Examination of the Nunavut Economy, (Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2001), p. 71. 

(4) Ibid. p. 72.

(5) Ibid. p. 16.

(6) Parks Canada received $2 million for accelerated expenditures related to the establishment of Tuktut Nogait National Park. The Paulatuk Community Complex was one of several projects that received funding from this envelope in the amount of $1 070 000.