THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 9, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.
Senator Rosa Galvez (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Rosa Galvez, I am a senator from Quebec, and I am the chair of the committee.
Today, we are holding a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I’d like to start with a very important reminder. Before asking and answering questions, I would ask members and witnesses in the room to refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or removing their earpieces when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
[English]
I will ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, from Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good morning. Clément Gignac, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Banff National Park, Alberta.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, Quebec.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you colleagues. I wish to welcome all of you and the viewers across the country who are watching our proceedings. Today, the committee has invited government officials to appear as part of its examination of Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.
We welcome, this morning, from Parks Canada, Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Planning and Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations. Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation.
Ms. Cunningham will have the floor for five minutes.
Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Planning, Parks Canada: Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to discuss Bill S-14. With me here today is Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations.
I would like to start by recognizing that we are meeting today on the unceded and traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
As you know, the Government of Canada introduced Bill S-14 in the Senate on October 19, 2023.
[Translation]
The bill before you proposes amendments that would see more than 12 million hectares formally protected under the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act.
The Canada National Parks Act and the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act will be amended to finalize the establishment of Akami-UapishkU-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve and the establishment of Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area, once the interim management plan is complete.
Additionally, the Canada National Parks Act will be amended to formally update the boundaries of seven existing national parks and one national park reserve.
[English]
While these lands are already managed or under the administration of Parks Canada, this legislation will ensure that they receive the full protections of the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and associated regulations. This is the final critical step to ensuring that these lands are protected for current and future generations.
The legislation also includes six housekeeping amendments that will align the Canada National Parks Act and the Rouge National Urban Park Act with the modern legislative environment and strengthen the tools used to operate and manage Parks Canada’s network of protected areas.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, Parks Canada administered places are a source of shared pride for all Canadians. They are also world renowned as places of shared stewardship with over 300 First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples.
National historic sites, national parks, and national marine conservation areas represent the very best that Canada has to offer and tell stories of who we are, including the histories, cultures, and contributions of Indigenous peoples. As I have already intimated Parks Canada does not do this important work alone.
In particular, since the Constitution Act of 1982, the creation and expansion of national parks, reserves, and marine conservation areas in Canada involves extensive consultation and collaboration with a variety of partners and stakeholders, including provincial, territorial, and Indigenous governments, groups, and communities.
It’s important to acknowledge that it was not always this way.
[English]
In many past instances, when the Government of Canada designated heritage places, lands were expropriated from settlers to Canada and Indigenous peoples were separated, often forcibly, from their ancestral lands and waters. Connections were severed by policies that resulted in intergenerational harm through loss of Indigenous knowledge, cultures and identities. Many heritage places administered by Parks Canada have seen a transition over time to our current context. Today, lands are acquired from willing sellers, donated or transferred from another level of government or from another federal department. Most importantly, Parks Canada strives to work collaboratively with Indigenous peoples in this regard, often creating formal agreements to acknowledge rights and recognition of land.
As mentioned early in my remarks, Parks Canada is currently engaged with more than 300 First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities across this country, collaborating in the conservation, restoration and presentation of natural and cultural heritage. Let me be clear that the lands included in Bill S-14 would not be before you today to include in permanent protection without extensive consultation and negotiation with Indigenous governments and communities, provincial and territorial governments, and local communities, including regional stakeholders.
For example, in the case of Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve, there are several agreements with Indigenous governments and organizations, and the province clearly stating that Parks Canada is committed to establishing this site as a national park reserve. This includes agreements with the Labrador Innu, the NunatuKavut Community Council and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. These agreements were the result of lengthy discussions, negotiations and consultations.
Taking years of consultation, negotiation and relationship building, the final step for a protected area is when it is written into legislation. With the tabling of Bill S-14, Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve and Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area have reached this final step of the process, and Indigenous communities have asked for additional measures to be added to bring these areas into force.
As one might imagine, each project will have its own unique set of circumstances to be considered and different partners and stakeholders to be consulted. The expansion of Tuktut Nogait National Park included in the bill is a good example. The park covers more than 16,000 square kilometres in the northeastern part of the Northwest Territories, within the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, as defined by the Inuvialuit Final Agreement land claim. The park was first proposed by the community of Paulatuk in 1988, as a way to protect the calving grounds of the Bluenose-West caribou herd. In fact, the name Tuktut Nogait means “young caribou” in Inuvialuktun. Bill S-14 would increase the park area by some 11 percent, adding another 1,800 or so square kilometres and expand the park into the Sahtu Settlement Area.
Under the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, Canada committed to consult the Sahtu Dene and Métis on any national park proposal within their settlement area. In 2000, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated formally requested that the federal government initiate negotiations to establish the Sahtu portion of the park. The consultation process, with respect to section 35 obligations that followed, included meetings with elders, and door-to-door interviews with community members from Paulatuk, Délı̨nę, and Colville Lake. It also included direct communication with the Délı̨nę First Nation, Ayoni Keh Land Corporation and the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated.
In addition, in 2022, a preliminary screening for the proposed addition to the national park was done as required by the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. The screening documents were shared with over 40 parties, none of which expressed any concerns about the proposed expansion of the park.
I would note that the park is managed by the Tuktut Nogait Management Board, which comprises members appointed by or on the advice of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Paulatuk Community Corporation, the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, the Délı̨nę Got’įnę Government, and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Canada.
A similar approach to consulting Indigenous communities and other stakeholders, including tourism operators and the public, was done for all of the protected areas affected by this bill. In the case of Indigenous communities specifically, all have either stated their support for the inclusion of lands in the Canada National Parks Act or the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, and none have put forward objections. Provincial and territorial governments affected by the proposals in the bill are supportive, as are other stakeholders.
Honourable Senators, Parks Canada has done the work to garner Indigenous, provincial, territorial and public support for this bill. I would respectfully recommend that the Senate support this bill. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re going to go to questions, so we’ll start with Senator Miville-Dechêne.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome to you both. For several years now, the Mingan Archipelago has been suffering more and more from the harmful effects of climate change, such as a drastic drop in the number of birds, seals, mackerel and herring, and of course, shoreline erosion. Now, in this case, I understand that you’re removing three islands from the park’s perimeter, including Île de la Maison, while expanding the park by 42 hectares.
Why are you doing this? What exactly are you doing in this park to combat climate change? I’m very attached to this park, where I used to kayak. I was able to see the wonders of the Mingan Islands.
Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Senator. That’s an excellent question. The three islands we obtained as part of the park’s expansion were part of the Innu’s request, and they were obtained through an agreement with the former owners of these islands.
[English]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You are not eliminating, but you are adding those islands.
Mr. Campbell: Yes, that is what is being added within the bill. The change of boundaries actually adds places within the Mingan Archipelago. Île du Havre is added, as well as a couple of other small islands within Mingan. That is the inclusion that we are proposing within the bill.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I didn’t understand that while you didn’t suppress any islands, you are in this case extending it. That’s great news.
[Translation]
Mr. Campbell: It was totally thanks to the support of the Mingan Innu groups, too.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Here is my other question: what are you doing to combat climate change in this particularly fragile place?
Mr. Campbell: There are several different stages that we’re in the process of setting up over there. In some islands, we have projects that are called ecological restoration; in some islands, there are projects to return certain places to a natural state — in three or four islands.
With the assets and workforce that are there, it’s necessary to fight climate change with —
[English]
— hardening of the assets there, so they are not blown away by larger storms.
We are taking steps to be able to have, for instance —
[Translation]
The docks there are now better fortified; this is an example.
There are a number of steps to make sure there’s more monitoring there with regard to climate change.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have one last question.
To protect their national parks, the United States has started limiting the number of people who can come there each day, and imposing quotas. Here in Canada, are we there yet?
[English]
Mr. Campbell: That’s a difficult question to answer. In many of our places, there is obviously no pressure that comes directly to people, other than in certain areas. What we have in those cases are zoning. If we take a large park — one with the largest visitation, which Senator Sorensen is from — for instance, Banff, we have areas where through zoning, we say that it is only a natural area. In those areas, human activity is excluded.
Then we have areas that are right up to areas that border, for instance, the town of Banff where human use is perfectly acceptable within certain parameters. Within those areas, those types of activities would happen.
There is the ability through management planning to have zones of different types of activity. That’s how, through the national parks system, we manage visitation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So it’s nothing or permission?
Mr. Campbell: No, there are four zones.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You don’t have to go through them, but there are different zones. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you to the witnesses. It is good to see you again. Mr. Campbell, we have known each other for a while, so I will direct my first question to you. I know you will be familiar with this.
I want to talk about how the bill addresses the issue of access roads for neighbouring communities near the protected areas. Again, I want to reflect on my own experience in Louisbourg, where the fortress site is 60 acres, yet the government eventually took 16,000 acres, including all the access to Louisbourg to Gabarus — a stretch of eight miles, effectively turning the town, which was a seaport, into an outport. I have always been concerned about Parks Canada’s overreach when it comes to taking land and how it affects neighbouring communities. Can you assure us that this will no longer be the case?
Mr. Campbell: Thank you, senator.
It’s very difficult to project into the future and say, “That will never happen again” with Parks Canada. Right now, we have our current management regime — and what is in front of everyone today is an act where we would then be the caretakers if, for instance, there were a provincial road that went through. In all the cases, we would have those transferred to us, and we would become the caretakers of those assets. So we would not only be responsible for the paving and the bridges, we would be responsible for the snow removal and all those sorts of things.
Anything before you today that would have a road pass through, that would be the case. We would continue to maintain that type of access, except in instances where you might be at the end of a road. There are some. With some of the lands you look at on Prince Edward Island, the road ended at the property that we are taking on, we would work toward renaturalizing that area or would use it as some other form of pathway for people to move on.
Senator MacDonald: That same approach was evident in Louisbourg in the 1960s. We weren’t at the end of the road. They put us at the end of the road. They took over the provincial road that went through, and they let it run down to the point where they claimed they had to shut it down, and they shut it down. That was 50 years ago, and I don’t see a lot of difference in your approach if that’s the methodology.
Mr. Campbell: In this case, in Prince Edward Island, the end of the road would actually be the ocean. There would be no further step that you could take in a vehicle, so it would be adding that piece back into the national park and then creating the connectivity of the shoreline. That would be the only instance I can think of in the bill where that could potentially happen.
Senator MacDonald: I have one more question. I would like to find out what the government intends to do and what measures it intends to take to preserve the heritage and memory of communities affected by the modifications to national parks and the conservation areas. Again, I look at my own hometown, West Louisbourg, as well as Kenyon Cove and Deep Cove. Kenyon Cove and Deep Cove were communities about 120 years old. West Louisbourg was over 200 years. My mother’s family had been there for 200 years, and my grandmother was expropriated. There is no mention of them around the fortress — no acknowledgement of them.
How is Parks Canada going to deal with this, going forward?
Mr. Campbell: I will use a few examples — not Louisbourg — where expropriates, have formed associations. The group of expropriates from Forillon National Park has formed a coalition, and we have been working with them on a number of things. One is entry into the parks — from that perspective, the free and unfettered entry into the park. We’ve had agreements with them around the maintenance of some of their old expropriated lodgings — as for refurbishing them and having access into some of those. Also, there are the stories being told of expropriates.
That’s from the settler expropriates, and then there are lots other agreements that we have with First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
Senator MacDonald: Hopefully, it will get better going forward.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. Welcome to the Senate. First of all, I would like to request a list of all the First Nations, Métis and Inuit who have been consulted and those who haven’t either. It would be good to bring them in as witnesses.
So Bill S-14 would establish that Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve in Newfoundland and Labrador. A national park reserve is a region that is intended to become a national park but where there are outstanding land claims by Indigenous groups that have yet to be settled.
What outstanding land claims are there with respect to this national park reserve, and which Indigenous groups have claims? What co-management agreements are in place for the park, and how do Indigenous communities share management and planning responsibilities for the park with Parks Canada?
Mr. Campbell: I will take that one as well.
For land claim agreements that are still outstanding and that we are working through, there is the Labrador Innu Land Claims Agreement, which has been signed as with the Nunatsiavut government — so the Inuit of Labrador. There’s a small piece of the northern section of the park reserve that is part of that land claim settlement.
As well, there is an outstanding land claim process under way for the NunatuKavut Community Council who, to date, continue to be beneficiaries of the agreement that we have for the creation of the Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve.
Within the groups that we have a co-management agreements are the Innu of Labrador, the Nunatsiavut government for the Inuit and the community council as well. All three of them have different types of agreements. Some are impact and benefit agreements, and others are what are called, shared understanding agreements. The shared understanding agreement is with the NunatuKavut government specifically as they have yet to have full recognition under section 35.
Those are the groups with whom we have shared governance. That shared governance forms three different councils. It is there for the establishment and consultation of the management plan that oversees the direction of the park, as well as the communities are involved in some of the day-to-day running of the park. We also have a community liaison position of individuals from each of those three groups. We then have additional impact and benefit agreements, as I said, with the Inuit and the Innu.
Senator McCallum: What about the other parks that are there? Are there outstanding land claims with those as well?
Mr. Campbell: Four where there are land claim agreements or continuing land claims. Through the Nunavut land claim agreement with the Qikiqtani, we have the Inuit association, we have Quttinirpaaq National Park and an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement, or IIBA, around it. Tallurutiup Imanga, again, is in the Qikiqtani region and there is an impact and benefit agreement around that as well. Ms. Cunningham already mentioned Tuktut Nogait with the Sahtu and Mingan with the Innu, as we had previously stated.
Senator McCallum: Could we have a list of those?
Mr. Campbell: Certainly.
The Chair: I was keeping these questions for the Minister of the Environment, but we don’t know yet if he’s coming, so I’ll ask you.
Recently, we were in Montréal hosting COP 15 conference on biodiversity. This crisis of biodiversity loss became extremely important.
Yesterday, in the National Finance Committee, we were talking about how the shrimp is disappearing from the Gulf of St. Lawrence because of climate change.
My question concerns biodiversity and how you assess biodiversity.
Every time you decide this is a national park, my first question is this: Does this belong to the Montréal agreement with the goal of conserving 30% of Canada’s land and water by 2030?
Second, when you take possession of the territory, I hope you measure and assess biodiversity. What indicators tell you that biodiversity is increasing in these protected areas? Are you looking at endangered species? Are you following biodiversity?
I’m asking that because today there are incredible genomic tools that can tell you in detail how good or how bad you are in terms of biodiversity.
Ms. Cunningham: Thank you very much for the questions. That was a lot of information there.
With regard to the lands included in Bill S-14, they are counted toward Canada’s protected areas in terms of achieving 25% of protected lands by 2025 and contributing toward 30 by 30 as well.
In addition to that, Parks Canada is also engaged in the establishment of 10 new national parks and 10 new national marine conservation areas, along with 10 national urban parks. That’s part of the expansion program to continue to contribute toward 30 by 30.
With regard to your question about biodiversity, the ecological values and the selection of lands, when we are identifying sites across it’s the country, we’re using a variety of things. One is, in fact, the biodiversity, the existence of ecosystems, the protection, the amount of undisturbed territory and those sorts of things. There is a site identification stage to new park establishment, as well as a feasibility stage where we work and consult with partners, identify potential boundaries and at that point are doing a thorough assessment of the feasibility. At that point, it includes an inventory of biodiversity, species, natural habitat, cultural connections and Indigenous knowledge. All of those aspects are studied during the feasibility stage for the establishment of a new place or the addition of lands.
With regard to indicators, each of our national parks have a monitoring indicator suite where we do resource conservation, research, study and monitoring own an ongoing basis. Some of our older parks that were established decades ago have a long history of data gathering and analysis to be able to track the ecosystem health of each of these national places over a period of time. We are seeing external climate change impacts in all of our places. Some of those we can address and mitigate through active management of, for instance, restoration and species movement and a variety of resource conservation projects that take place in our parks with our scientific staff. In other cases, we are able to contribute to the body of knowledge within the country and internationally with regard to the impacts of various types of climate change in our places.
In terms of which indicators, they each have different indicators depending on the situation which the park derives. But that is part of the early stages, as we have scientific and feasibility studies that inform the appropriate suite of indicators to use as an ongoing monitoring program for that park.
I think I’ve touched on a few things.
Mr. Campbell: You asked around our use of different technologies. We use a large number of different technologies now, everything from the electronic monitoring of species and their movement to environmental DNA. You may have seen recently in the news, the issue of whirling disease in the mountain parks and in the lakes. Environmental DNA is used in order to be able to look at that, the same as we are doing for zebra mussel testing. For invasive species, we tend to use a lot of environmental DNA techniques. For the movement of large terrestrial fauna, we use a lot of environmental DNA as well. As animals are moving through overpasses and underpasses, there are rakes, for lack of a better term for that, that actually take the samples from the animals that are crossing through and then we do environmental DNA testing to see the species complexity plus the movement of genetic material to ensure that there is a broader ecological resilience there to the DNA.
The Chair: To complement that, we are on track to attain the 30 by 30? Where can we find these reports where you inform about the state of the ecosystem health of national parks?
Mr. Campbell: Parks Canada is responsible for a percentage of the percentage of 30 by 30, so it would be wrong for us to comment on the full 30 by 30 on track. However, Parks Canada continues to play its role in moving forward, and we’re having very successful discussions with groups all across the country. I will say that in many cases, it is the local Indigenous organizations who are now coming to us, looking for that level of protection and looking to see if we can do that jointly as an Indigenous-protected area at the same time as we are doing it under federal legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to the witnesses. First of all, I’d like to thank my colleague Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne for raising the subject of Mingan Islands Park, which I know well, having visited it several times in recent years with my friends and close family in Havre-Saint-Pierre. Your answers have reassured me in this regard.
I will now put on my hat as an economist and member of the National Finance Committee. The bill will significantly increase the size of at least 2 of the 10 parks. I’d like to know what the budgetary consequences will be. What is the size of the budget envelope?
We have a bill before us, but there must be financial consequences and costs attached to it that will follow afterwards, because there are obviously negotiations. What can we expect, from a financial point of view, in terms of the provisions of this bill?
Mr. Campbell: There are two answers to this question. For the smaller islands that are attached to already established parks, there’s not really a big cost. So it’s difficult to determine. We’re under more pressure from each of the parks to get more land to manage.
As for the other major parks, it would probably be best if we sent you a written response, to make sure we have the exact figures.
Senator Gignac: All right. How does this work? I understand that the procedure to follow and the factors to consider vary from park to park. I’m trying to understand how you determine what you need to protect and the different criteria you rely on. Do these criteria vary from park to park?
You explained the situation for the Mingan Islands. We’re talking mainly about two large parks, one in the Northwest Territories, Tuktut Nogait National Park, and the other in Saskatchewan. What led you to significantly expand these two parks? What were the reasons?
Can you elaborate?
Mr. Campbell: As Ms. Cunningham mentioned, a series of studies led to this decision. At Parks Canada, we have a plan for establishing different parks and acquiring land and different ecosystems across the country. So we have ways of creating representative parks in the different ecological regions of Canada. That’s how we determine our priority for establishing the different parks and marine areas.
In terms of the size of the different places, we want to make sure that we have a certain level of ecological integrity. The purpose of creating national parks is to ensure the ecological sustainability of marine areas. That’s the goal of Parks Canada’s protected areas, and it’s also about having a large enough area to make sure we have real ecological processes in the park.
Senator Gignac: I’m now going to put on my hat as Quebec’s former minister of economic development and the person responsible for Plan Nord. We had to expand protected areas and negotiations were a little tougher with the forest industry.
Were there any issues in any of the 10 parks? Did you have to negotiate with the forest industry? If so, what was their attitude?
Mr. Campbell: As far as the forest industry is concerned, since most of the discussion is about Northern Canada, it’s not an issue. We consult extensively with the fishing industry, for example, and the transportation industry, in some cases as well.
As I said in my answers to Senator MacDonald’s questions, we always conduct this type of consultation with various groups of people, industries and other stakeholders who are next to the parks.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here today. It’s much appreciated. As you know, I have much respect for Parks Canada, and I applaud all the processes you so diligently go through, which, of course, take time. It’s very exciting that this bill is actually before us, because I know these things take an extraordinary amount of time.
Following up on my colleague’s question about cost, I always like to ask about value. That may be my mayor’s hat that I’m putting on.
I think the environmental value is obvious to people on this bill, but I’m curious to know: Do national park expansions like these — which is different than the national parks I’m perhaps familiar with — bring these benefits to the local economies in their respective regions?
Ms. Cunningham: Thank you for the question.
As you know, coming from Banff National Park, you see a significant number of tourists every year. The tourism economy is certainly one way in which Parks Canada contributes to the gross domestic product. All of these in some shape or form contribute to local economies. They create jobs. The infrastructure is a capital investment over time, both in terms of maintenance and capital infrastructure — the engagement of the private sector, for instance. Our land claims negotiations with Indigenous communities ensure employment, ensure access in some cases and generate some small-scale tourism offers, even in our northern parks where Indigenous partners are often providing logistical support or various types of touring opportunities to engage the public.
In terms of some statistics, across the country, Parks Canada is a renowned tourism operator, welcoming close to 25 million visitors per year. In many of our places, our national parks are iconic. The Parks Canada brand is a strong one. It is a recognized park system and world-renowned in that regard, and we’re seen as a park system that’s second to none.
That does, in many cases — for example, in our national urban park program — create an environment where partners do want to see Parks Canada’s presence. They do want to see our investment, our promotional reach and our ability to continue to foster economic growth in communities.
An example is the infrastructure investments that we’ve done across the country over the last eight years — for instance, with over $3 billion of infrastructure investment. Having come from Atlantic Canada myself, the private sector contribution to some of these places during the winter months, for instance, was significant. I had mayors come to me when I was in Prince Edward Island National Park and even in the waterways and express that they’re seeing construction workers staying in tourism facilities in the winter because of the machinery around the infrastructure, development and economic spinoffs that are generated by that. Certainly from a municipal standpoint, Parks Canada does bring the contributions and ability for other partners to leverage that economic growth.
Mr. Campbell: As we see, there are two other pieces that I want to touch on. One is cultural continuity, of both traditional users and of local Indigenous groups being able to continue to have access, in perpetuity, in a lot of these areas. Tuktut Nogait National Park was a great example, in that the traditional harvest and the protection of caribou herds through that area are very important for the cultural continuity of the individuals that are there. It’s hard to put that in straight economic terms, that cultural continuity, but certainly that’s a large one.
The other one is ecosystem services. I don’t have to tell you what the Colombia Icefield and the water it produces for the rest of the country out of your area. But some of the others, the large peat areas absorbing large amounts of carbon in two of the parks being created here, again would be massive as far as carbon sinks. Our ability, as Canada, to continue to have natural carbon stores and their value to our economy and health, is difficult to exactly quantify. Certainly, there are many models out there that try to do that. I don’t have that exact answer today from the quantification of those ecological services for these particular areas.
Senator Sorensen: I can tell you the value is greater than the cost.
Changing gears, this is for my education. In general, Parks Canada allows Indigenous communities to engage in traditional hunting and harvesting activities in its places, in some of its places. How will that relate to these newly protected lands we are talking about now? Also for my benefit, can you explain the concept of traditional land users and what rights they have or will have?
Mr. Campbell: The term traditional land users is used extensively now when we are making agreements with provinces and territories. I’ll use the Labrador example with the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve. In that area, the NunatuKavut, which still does not have section 35 rights, are still considered traditional users of the land. There are parameters published around that. I will have to look them up in my notes to remember. There are, essentially, 50 families that come within 10 kilometres. There are a number of factors going into that to establish that part of the community. They would not be considered within the Indigenous group but are traditional users of the land.
There are some other examples where provinces or territories or through, for instance, the Nunavut claims agreement that other traditional users of that land — traditional fishers who may not be part of the Inuit community — would also have use and some harvesting rights. That’s all through negotiation. That’s really how it happens, through section 35 of the Constitution, those are established rights for Indigenous peoples. We do benefit agreements. In this case, we sort of walked through those between Ms. Cunningham and myself in response. Those would be how those traditional rights are managed.
Parks that were established before 1982, there are sometimes rights and recognition agreements that we are negotiating with Indigenous peoples across the country. Those would re-establish rights. Or we can do it through a superintendent’s order. I’m sure some of you, yourself, senator, are following this through the Alberta news that has come out recently around a hunt that took place. It was to be ceremonial, around an Indigenous treaty between the Stoney and the Simpcw. They wanted a traditional hunt within Jasper. It was done under a superintendent’s order.
There are lots of mechanisms. If it were pre-1982, the parks of Prince Edward Island would have a different set of rules than the newly established parks.
Senator Massicotte: I didn’t have a question but then you referred to carbon sinks and you made a comment how significant that is.
The reason I raised my hand is that, in the last four or five months, I thought the sciences had basically woken us to these not necessarily being very good sinks. With the roots and forest fires, increasingly studies indicate it is the opposite. There will be more CO2 released in the air despite the density of the forest than will be saved. Is that accurate?
Mr. Campbell: I won’t argue the science, today. One of the pieces, if you look at permafrost and muskeg and large wetland areas, in fact, they don’t have the same impact. Fire obviously doesn’t have the same impact on them. Warming has an impact on them, so the release through warming will have an impact on how much carbon they can continue to capture.
That being said, the larger the undisturbed area you have the greater the chance that carbon continues to be captured and not released. From that perspective, from an ecological processes perspective, that’s more what I am discussing.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to follow up on Senator Sorensen’s point about the use of these national parks when they’re shared and when there’s cohabitation between non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities. I’m thinking, of course, of the new park in Labrador.
In British Columbia, there was the example of an Indigenous community that had historical and territorial rights to Joffre Lakes Park, which is a very popular tourist destination. An accommodation was made to close the park at the time of traditional gathering activities and certain celebrations.
Is there also a possibility, as part of your agreements with Indigenous communities, of closing the park entirely or partially? How does this fit in?
Mr. Campbell: Of course, there are places all across Canada in parks where Indigenous groups can have a restriction, in an area of a certain size, in order to maintain a level of protection that is spiritually necessary for them.
[English]
Although referred to broadly as a housekeeping item, the change in the naming of Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve to include the Haida heritage, that is the way the Haida have referred to the area since pre-inception of what we consider a national park. The word park doesn’t work for the Haida Nation. An important change is being made to recognize the fact that there is a spiritual connection to the land element of that park. That is why the Haida have asked us to move forward with the dual name change for that area. Within Gwaii Haanas, there are a number of areas that are restricted to only the Haida Nation because they have such spiritual meaning. They are areas containing the remains and spirits of their relatives. In those areas, yes, there are restrictions, and they are applied in two different ways. In the same way as an ecological restriction, they can be put in under broader pieces within the legislation, but they’re put in through the management plan zoning that I had talked about before, or they can be put in under a superintendent’s order when a superintendent says that in this area there is restricted access.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand your answer, but my question was more specific. In those agreements, do you have space to close the whole park, or are you doing it in specific places where there are sacred customs? I would like to know how those agreements are shaped or if they are shaped according to the evolution of the situation. I know that in British Columbia, the event I am referring to was complicated because the whole park was closed.
Mr. Campbell: I should never say “never,” but I can’t foresee a time where we would have the closure of an entire park for a cultural reason. That goes against the overarching mandate of what a national park or a national marine conservation area would be. Today, it is principally done by zone and cultural zones.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I would like to go back to the traditional land users and that definition, because the ones that are in there are all individuals who have been born or adopted into that area. But we have the NunatuKavut Community Council, which is a group, and they don’t have section 35 rights established yet. Is it common practice that you negotiate with people that are trying to establish — because this is creating controversy in the Indigenous community. Is it common practice that you do that? Where are the section 35 rights holders? Because I don’t see them listed here, and there would have to be some.
Mr. Campbell: There are two section 35 rights holders, as I said, the Innu and the Nunatsiavut. NunatuKavut was part of the establishment agreement that we have with Newfoundland and Labrador, that they establish that as another group whom we have a shared understanding agreement with. That was part of the agreement of the transfer of the lands from the province to Parks Canada. They established that as a group.
We have groups asserting section 35 rights in other areas of the country, and we continue to work with those groups that have asserted rights until such time as Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada determines it through their processes of rights determination. Parks Canada never does rights determination. If you are in the process with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we would have agreements with those groups that are doing that assertion of rights.
Senator McCallum: Is there contention between the right holders versus the — ?
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Senator McCallum: I want to go back to the question of biodiversity. In the two sections of the bill under “protection of natural environment,” you have two different definitions. One is under the Canada National Parks Act, and the other one is the Rouge National Urban Park Act. Those are different, yet there is nothing in there to look at biodiversity and the ecosystem. Could you explain the difference?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, so the definition of “ecological integrity” within the national park includes biodiversity, how we look at all of the ecological processes within a national park, within the national urban park, and specifically why the national urban park had its own specific legislation. It is a different standard that you can apply to a national urban park, as you have city streets running through it. In the case of Rouge National Urban Park, you have the two busiest highways in the country that run through the middle of it. In those cases, we needed to create a different standard for the Rouge National Urban Park than exists for all the other national parks.
Senator McCallum: When we look at the protection of the natural environment — I’m thinking of zebra mussels and blue-green algae — do you have that occurring in any of the national parks?
Mr. Campbell: Yes, we do. Thank you for the question. When we went back to environmental DNA monitoring, that was one way we determined that. We do monitoring in Clear Lake in Riding Mountain National Park, and we have a program to try to reduce the risk of zebra mussels, although in an area where the infestation continues to grow, we may be fighting a battle that is hard to win. We keep at it because of the fact that zebra mussels change the ecology of lakes substantially. I mentioned whirling disease before.
In those cases, if there is a process to remove that invasive species, we will take the actions required to remove that invasive species. We do that with wild boar across the West. We have to take aggressive measures to make sure there is not an establishment of wild boar within national urban parks as well. There are a lot of invasive species. We saw woolly hemlock in the news this week — which is why I’m mentioning it — but we have a large number of invasive species that we continue to work on across the country.
Senator McCallum: Can you comment on the blue-green algae?
Mr. Campbell: I think I would start to get myself into trouble with blue-green algae without having one of our environmental scientists beside me, so I won’t go too deep into that today.
Senator McCallum: In the act, under explanatory notes, clause 2, it says “the use, transportation and temporary storage of pesticides and other toxic substances.” What is that about?
Mr. Campbell: Perhaps as we walk through the clause-by-clause later, we can specifically address that question. Coming up with it today may be difficult, but we are happy to respond either in writing or during clause-by-clause.
The Chair: This is with respect to offences. There are amendments to the Canada National Parks Act, with similar amendments also proposed to section 17 of the Rouge National Urban Park Act.
Mr. Campbell: I’m there now. Those deal specifically with the dumping of toxins and other elements within the park, and we wanted to have a stronger regime and fines because we are seeing dumping within the Rouge National Urban Park. We all foresaw that it might become a problem, and, in fact, it has become a problem, and this is one of the deterring factors. So, we put in which toxins would be regulated separately within the regulations. It’s under the act, and it’s in the regulations.
The Chair: Why? What happened to prompt you to put that in?
Mr. Campbell: In the Rouge National Urban Park, we have seen over time a number of individuals who have dumped everything from trash to pets they no longer want to hazardous chemicals. Since there are so many different places within the park that you can do that, we wanted to have a stronger regulatory regime so that when individuals do that — in this case, with toxins — we could come back with a stronger set of regulations to make it easier for the courts or us to charge people with summary convictions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is it possible to have a written summary of what you are doing in terms of preparing for climate change and protecting biodiversity in the Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve? Does that exist? I know you gave me two examples, but I would like it to be a little more fleshed out.
Mr. Campbell: We can absolutely provide that, chair.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: An explanation.
Mr. Campbell: We can certainly send the management plan and monitoring reports.
The Chair: If you could send that before November 23, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Campbell: They are both on the website, but we can certainly send the link.
The Chair: Senators, colleagues, we have exhausted the question period.
Senator McCallum: [Technical difficulties].
Mr. Campbell: Tilts would be a form of cabin, denoting a lean-to form of cabin — so that it is clear to people. It’s a local term that is used.
The Chair: Colleagues, because we have time, I would like to take the opportunity to pass on some information. First, we decided at steering that we are going to request to continue our sittings on Tuesdays. It’s not because we don’t want to sit on Thursday; we want to, but we are going to request this because we have several pieces of legislation, and we have our studies to do.
The other point is that, as you will have noticed, the agenda varies because sometimes we have okays from the people we ask to come as witnesses, but sometimes we don’t. So, we are trying to do the best we can with the people who accept our invitations.
The third point is that I have been contacted by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, whom our committee regularly invites, and he has referred to the four reports that he just tabled. He would like to come and present them to us, and get your feedback on the reports, but also on the job he does for us.
Senator Massicotte: I agree with the subject matter, it is appropriate. Is he taking somebody else’s spot so that we’re delaying legislation?
The Chair: What happens is that sometimes, as I was mentioning, witnesses do not agree to come on a specific date.
Senator Massicotte: At this point, given the knowledge you have, are we delaying anybody or any review?
The Chair: I don’t think so.
Senator Massicotte: Then I think it is a good idea.
The Chair: The condition is that we don’t delay the work we have. If time doesn’t permit, it will be next year. But we will still invite him.
With that, thank you so much. I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)