THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:15 [ET] to consider 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 Josée Verner (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: My name is Josée Verner, I am a senator from Quebec and deputy chair of this committee. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
[English]
I would like to begin with a reminder. Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask members and the witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room. I will now ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator D. Patterson: Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut.
Senator White: Good morning. Judy White, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum from the Barren Lands First Nation in Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: I wish to welcome all of you and the viewers across the country who are watching our proceedings.
[Translation]
Today, the committee is continuing 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 (Protecting Canada’s National Wonders Act).
For our first panel, we welcome by videoconference: Loretta Michelin, Chairperson, Nunatsiavut, Parks Canada Cooperative Management Board for the Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains, and Miles Anderson, rancher local to the Grasslands National Park and members of Canada’s Nature Advisory Committee.
[English]
From the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, we welcome Sandra Schwartz, National Executive Director, and Alison Woodley, Senior Strategic Advisor.
Welcome and thank you for being with us. Five minutes is reserved for your opening remarks. Loretta Michelin, the floor is yours, followed by Miles Anderson and Sandra Schwartz.
Loretta Michelin, Chairperson, Nunatsiavut, Parks Canada Cooperative Management Board for the Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve, as an individual: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss Bill S-14, protecting Canada’s natural wonders act.
My name is Loretta Michelin, and I am the Chair of the Inuit Cooperative Management Board for the Mealy Mountain National Park Reserve. The creation of the Cooperative Management Board, or CMB, was a requirement of the Labrador Inuit Park Impacts and Benefits Agreement, or PIBA, signed in 2020 between Parks Canada and the Nunatsiavut Government.
The CMB consists of five members: two appointed by Parks Canada and two appointed by the Nunatsiavut Government. The chair is independent and appointed jointly by the Nunatsiavut Government and Parks Canada. The CMB is required under the PIBA to act impartially and in the public interest. When performing its duties, it shall not act as a representative of the body that appointed the members. The public interest includes the interest of Inuit.
The board is required to meet a minimum of twice a year and may provide advice to Parks Canada, the Nunatsiavut Government or other relevant entities on all matters related to the management of the national park reserve and any other matters for which its advice is requested. This includes such things as operational priorities, management planning, development plans and economic opportunities for Inuit. It also includes protection and safekeeping of cultural resources, environmental assessments for developments or undertakings and traditional land use in the park reserve.
Under the Inuit PIBA, Parks Canada has an obligation to recommend to Parliament that the Canada National Parks Act be amended so as to apply to the national park reserve.
The PIBA also allows for a beneficiary of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement to exercise his or her harvesting rights under the final agreement in the area of the national park reserve within the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area. For all other areas of the reserve, Inuit shall be deemed for all purposes to be traditional land users under the federal-provincial memorandum of agreement. Under this agreement, traditional activities include such activities as fishing, berry picking, hunting, trapping, cutting wood for personal use and camping. Also included are transporting and using firearms and ammunition for personal safety, hunting and trapping.
Our board supports Bill S-14, allowing the reserve to fall under the Canada National Parks Act. This would allow for the lands to receive the full protection of the Canada National Parks Act. As well, it would allow for a standardized regulatory regime in the reserve. This would help with such things as protecting the endangered woodland caribou herd found in the Mealy Mountains.
The Labrador Inuit already have a good and productive working relationship with Parks Canada given their experience in the Torngat Mountains National Park. We very much would like to continue this collaboration in the Mealy Mountain Park Reserve. Thank you.
Miles Anderson, Rancher local to Grasslands National Park and member of Canada’s Nature Advisory Committee, as an individual: Good morning, senators.
As a family, we have been managing land in the area of Grasslands National Park for about a century. It has never been easy, but from generation to generation we’ve found a system that allows us to make a living while not completely upsetting the natural processes that give the prairie its resilience. We do this by raising cattle. Non-naive livestock helps.
The transformation of the prairie to other uses has been a constant wave of government programs. This has been the practice of governments until about 1980. Not all people used them, leaving areas that are somewhat left intact. Two of these areas are the east and west blocks of what is now known as Grasslands National Park.
Government attitudes are changing. There is now some respect for what we do as land managers. I will spare you the details of how this relationship was fostered, but there is no better feeling than having the academic research to show that anecdotal knowledge is right. “Rock Creek University” is what our family calls this school of hard knocks, which is like anecdotal knowledge.
I support this bill because land tenure is and always will be an issue. This bill puts the land in place that the willing seller wanted at the time of sale. The land probably will be part of a Key Biodiversity Area, KBA, and will become part of protecting the core of the Central Grasslands Roadmap, a Canada, U.S. and Mexico initiative to help songbirds in their habitats along their migration routes.
Our ranch and Grasslands National Park have a collaborative agreement for cattle grazing on parklands. This enables the park to meet the habitat needs of sage grouse as required by the Species at Risk Act.
The prairie is much more than just grass. We know so much and have so much to learn. When managing this land, we have decided to take small steps when changing things in case we are wrong. If in doubt, we stay the course. What is learned about these processes can be expanded over a much larger area, thus expanding the core without more land acquisition. Maybe someday the biodiversity fostered here will have value to others as well.
This land holds rich paleontological resources to be identified and included in the fossil records of Canada and the world. There are also archaeological sites that need to be recorded. As a result of lack of glaciation, everything is still fairly close to the surface, so you can see the process of what has happened in the life of the earth.
The protection that this act provides should bind the park management to care for these resources. This landscape is pretty much clear of development. We don’t need much to do what we do as ranchers. Money is usually limited, so not much happens. The government has a lot of money and can build a lot in a short time. This can be good, but not always. My experience is that they hear but don’t listen, and we are just locals and we don’t understand the needs of Canada. We are proud of our little piece of paradise, but now it includes everyone.
Local people who enjoy these places are getting used to the new rules. As the generation before me dies, no one will remember what that used to be. Will that then become part of the archaeological records?
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. Schwartz, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Sandra Schwartz, National Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wildlife Society: Hello, senators. Thank you for inviting me and for this opportunity to speak to you today about Bill S-14.
[English]
I’m the National Executive Director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, or CPAWS. We’re a not-for-profit organization not associated with Parks Canada. A lot of people think we are associated; we are not. I am joined this morning by my colleague Alison Woodley, Senior Strategic Advisor at our national office.
I’d like to start by acknowledging that we are gathered on unceded and unsurrendered territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. I do wish to express my appreciation for their stewardship of this land for millennia.
I am here today to speak in support of Bill S-14. This legislation holds the power to protect and preserve critical landscapes and seascapes needed for us and the species with whom we share this earth to thrive. That’s the purpose of our organization.
We aim to ensure the long-term conservation of these ecosystems, foster a deeper sense of stewardship and promote the connection between people and nature. By advocating for strong area-based conservation measures and by engaging in collaborative partnerships with Indigenous communities, stakeholders and governments, CPAWS strives to create a sustainable future where a natural heritage thrives for generations to come.
Bill S-14 serves as a crucial step toward advancing conservation efforts by strengthening the long-term protection of our natural spaces. It provides legislative protections and clarity, enabling the establishment, expansion and effective management of national parks, national urban parks and national marine conservation areas.
Bill S-14 will establish in law two remarkable new protected areas in partnership with Indigenous communities, who have stewarded the lands and oceans since time immemorial. The establishment of these areas is the result of decades of discussions and negotiations. We would like to congratulate all of those involved in getting to this stage: Indigenous governments; Parks Canada officials, both past and present; provincial and territorial government officials; and other local communities.
We also welcome the formalization of eight national park expansions through this bill as well as the important step of recognizing in legislation the full name of Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, and Haida Heritage Site.
First Nations, Métis and Inuit are leading the way in protecting lands and oceans in Canada, working to protect large areas of their traditional territories. Co-governments and co-management will be key to establishing new protected areas, including new national parks and new national marine conservation areas. It’s critical that we also ensure that long-term funding is available to support these initiatives.
Conserving and restoring our natural spaces is crucial not only for their intrinsic value but also for their capacity to mitigate climate change. By protecting intact ecosystems and restoring degraded ones, we can enhance carbon sequestration and increase the resilience of our landscapes and sea escapes. The establishment of national parks, national marine conservation areas and other protected areas supports biodiversity and ecological resilience and fosters economic and social well-being.
Parks and other protected areas are significant socio-economic advantages. These protected areas create jobs, particularly in rural and remote areas. A study from 2019 by Parks Canada found that every dollar invested by the agency generated more than $3 to Canada’s GDP, that their programs supported almost 40,000 full-time equivalent jobs and that more than 40% of the agency’s investment was eventually returned to different levels of government in tax revenue.
Funding to support Indigenous programs creates important and meaningful jobs in remote communities and supports traditional stewardship and cultural practices, which are essential to community well-being. Guardian programs are a very effective tool to ensure parks and protected areas are effectively managed and monitored by those who know the areas best. Investing in parks and protected areas is an investment in the environment, the economy and in our communities.
In speaking about this bill, I would like to acknowledge that it is an important step in the journey to fulfilling Canada’s commitments to protecting nature and halting biodiversity loss, but it is only one step. Ongoing funding and support for First-Nations-, Métis- and Inuit-led conservation across Canada will be critical if we are to succeed.
We also encourage the federal government to continue to work with provincial and territorial governments and civil society organizations like ours to deliver upon its commitment to protect at least 30% of lands and oceans by 2030, including through the establishment of at least 10 new national parks, 10 new national marine conservation areas and 15 new urban national parks, co-governed and co-managed with Indigenous peoples.
This work is critical to reverse the collapse of biodiversity, to tackle climate change and to advance reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, while supporting economic opportunities at the same time.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration this morning.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will go to questions now.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: This is a question for Ms. Michelin.
I would like to know, first, if you are completely satisfied with the protection of the land and animals that this particular park brings. You’ve talked about the caribou, but we’ve read on the Parks Canada website that protected areas, like national parks, are often not connected to other natural areas, and human activities, for example, can take place around national parks. That leads to the isolation of wild animal populations, which are cut off from the surrounding landscape. They have to travel between patches of habitat. It seems it is very difficult for wild animals.
Does Bill S-14 address this issue? How is this integrated into the bill?
Ms. Michelin: One of the aspects of this bill that we think will be advantageous is to have a uniform regulatory regime. Right now, my understanding is that because the park reserve isn’t under the Canada National Parks Act, we still have provincial regulations applying within the park. So it is a mismatch of different regulatory regimes that deal with the protection of, for example, the caribou herd within the park.
Hopefully, once the reserve falls under the Canada National Parks Act, everything in relation to the protection of wildlife will fall under the regulations of the act and there will not be a mismatch of different regulatory schemes within the reserve.
Senator Arnot: We have a really stellar panel today. I have questions for every witness, but I will focus on just one witness for the first round, and that’s Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson, I want my colleagues to know that you have been very influential in changing perceptions of cattle as a conservation threat to being part of the solution in the region, especially concerning the integrity of the Grasslands National Park area and the endangered sage grouse. It is quite remarkable that your family has been able to survive as dry-line grazers in southwestern Saskatchewan for over 100 years. You won’t call yourself a PhD, but I will call you Dr. Anderson, because I believe from you have to say and your experience that you have a PhD from Rock Creek University. You’re a citizen who champions parks and the environment, and you have a particular interest in preserving archaeological sites.
Given all of your experience as a rancher in the Grasslands National Park area, what are your views about the current grazing regulations within the national parks and how they impact conservation efforts and local agriculture?
Second, how do you perceive the impact of park regulations on local communities and ecosystems? How do you strike the proper balance between the environmental protection needs and local economic activities?
If there is anything else you want to say, please feel free to amplify that. Take your time. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Anderson: I appreciate the questions.
One thing that could answer all of it is that we don’t value the prairie as we should. What should happen is that we graze cows to make the prairie better, and if that can somehow make the ecosystem function better, that’s what we should do.
Bison used to do it, and it took them 10,000 years of evolution to make that happen. With cows, it has probably been only about 150 years, but our cows have gotten a lot better. When we talk about the 1897 and 1906-07 storms that killed pretty much every form of domestic livestock on the plains, they were completely naive. They had no idea what to eat or how to survive, but the cows have gotten better.
I think it’s a combination of things, but what we keep trying to do is change the land to fit our animals. Let’s think about what we’re trying to do and make the animals fit the land. That’s part of the success that we’ve had, I think. It has nothing to do with what I particularly did. It has to do with what my forebears did and just the natural selection they let happen on our places.
How that pertains to grasslands is that we can use grasslands with a team of folks, such as the ecologists and the biologists, just the way they can do things that as a rancher I don’t do. We can learn about this stuff so that we can actually say that when we do this particular process at this particular time, this is what the outcome will be, and that’s what we want for this species, be it a loggerhead shrike or the list of species that require our help.
As far as the local community goes, if these values are more than just agricultural, then we will actually probably employ other folks to monitor and study. It could be a form of mitigation or something. There are other ways of collecting value from this land. We only use the agricultural value, and that’s the only value we recognize. Is there anything more I can help you with?
Senator Arnot: There certainly is, but I don’t know if we have time. I would like you to describe some of the things you found. You know about the Indigenous archaeological sites. Do you feel that they’re being properly identified and protected now? Or do you need more regulations on that?
Mr. Anderson: I think they’re being identified and processed as such. I don’t think everybody knows what they actually have, and maybe that’s a good thing. I know I’ve seen the folks out there, and they’ve asked me various questions to see if they could find sites that they know exist but can’t find. I’ve helped them on a couple of things that I see out there, which is a good thing. The relationship has gotten a whole lot better in the last 30 years between Parks Canada and the people surrounding or living amongst the land. I think it’s covered pretty well.
Senator Arnot: I, for one, am really happy that you’re involved in this work because this park is unique in the world, and you understand it. Your voice is really important to support the Grasslands National Park. Thank you very much for your contributions to that. I look forward to your further contributions to maintaining and sustaining that park.
Mr. Anderson: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations and welcome to the Senate.
What I’m going to ask about you may not be able to answer. It is about land acknowledgment and the term “time immemorial.” The term means that the rights holders who have lived there forever, their customs, governance and place names were pre-contact. That is very important, especially in a park area. I have concerns about this, and I have stated it. We have a group who doesn’t have recognized rights, and they’re included in this bill. I asked the minister how that happened.
With respect to the term “time immemorial,” how is it related to traditional activity and traditional land use that are defined here? The words “traditional” and “time immemorial” are very closely connected. Could you comment on that?
Ms. Schwartz: I’ll try to begin answering and perhaps turn to my colleague as well.
We certainly recognize that this has been a significant part of the discussions with respect to the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve for a very long time, and we are broadly supportive of the approach for this particular park reserve.
We are certainly hearing that there may be further dialogue needed on the details, and if that’s the case, we do hope that can happen expeditiously so that the bill can move forward in a way that all parties are comfortable with. But we’re really not in a position to speak to the specific details of the issue, and I do believe there are additional witnesses coming today who might be able to speak to that.
Senator McCallum: Did anyone else want to comment? Any of the other presenters?
Mr. Anderson: I’ll say one thing; I can understand where you’re coming from. Even as much as the naming of a stream, it was a big job to get Rock Creek fixed. It was mislabelled Morgan Creek on a map, so every time a federal employee talked about that particular body of water, it was recognized as Morgan Creek. Actually, it exists in the U.S. and runs into Rock Creek in Canada for about half a mile. It took about 25 to 30 years to get that fixed. All I have to say is if you’ve got some things to do, good luck.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator D. Patterson: I’d like to thank the witnesses. I’d like to direct my question to Ms. Loretta Michelin, Chair of the Cooperative Management Board.
Ms. Michelin, in your presentation you talked about the agreement that has been signed and that it acknowledges the interests of the Inuit, that the Inuit are acknowledged as land users and that the Inuit have a good working relationship with Parks Canada.
For the benefit of the committee, I wonder if you could tell us who the Inuit you referred to in your presentation are, please.
Ms. Michelin: The Inuit are the Inuit under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, which is a modern treaty that has been signed. They are the beneficiaries of this agreement who fall under the Nunatsiavut Government.
Does that answer your question?
Senator D. Patterson: Yes, so there’s just one Inuit group that you were talking about with reference to this park. Is that correct?
Ms. Michelin: Yes, I am referring to the Inuit who are beneficiaries of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any other questions for our witnesses?
Thank you very much. Your contributions will be taken into consideration by senators.
For our second panel, we welcome, from the Innu Nation, the Honourable Peter Penashue, P.C., Negotiator, accompanied by Larry Innes, Legal Counsel; and from the NunatuKavut Community Council, Todd Russell, President, accompanied by Derek A. Simon, Legal Counsel.
Five minutes is reserved for your opening remarks. Mr. Penashue, the floor is yours.
Hon. Peter Penashue, P.C., Negotiator, Innu Nation: [Indigenous language spoken.]
My name is Peter Penashue. I am the son of Francis Penashue. My grandfather is Matshiu Penashue, with whom I grew up out on the land in Akamiu-Uapisku.
Matshiu Penashue’s father is Penashuet; Penashuet’s parents are Sebastien and Shanut. The father of Shanut is Pien Pastitshi who is my great-great-great grandfather.
Pien Pastitshi lived in what’s now known as North River in English. In Innu it was referred to as Nekaustuk-shipu. That family frequented what is known as the Wonderstrands. We are fortunate to have had this documented in the 1970s by our elders. The last Innu person to leave Sandwich Bay was Shimun Pasteen. He was also the great-grandson of Pien. He frequented the Sandwich Bay area and moved between what are now known as Cartwright and Rigolet.
I tell you that story because many people in the south of Labrador keep repeating that the Innu people did not go further south and east. That’s why I tell you that story.
The Innu Nation represents the Innu of Labrador as Indigenous people who Canada has recognized as section 35 rights holders. The Innu Nation has an agreement in principle for a modern land claims and self-government agreement with Canada and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and is close to concluding a final agreement.
Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve is recognized by Canada as being an integral part of Nitassinan, the homeland of the Innu. Akami-Uapishku forms a vital cultural, historical and natural part of our heritage. The name means “whitecapped mountains.” I have spent much of my life there. It is a place that is alive with the memories of my ancestors, and it will be part of the future for my children.
The Innu Nation was the driving force behind the establishment of the national park reserve. Without Innu support, it would not have been possible. Both the land transfer agreement with the province and the Parks Impacts and Benefits Agreement with the Innu Nation were announced together with the establishment of the national park reserve in July 2015.
These agreements reflect the careful balance of interests between the Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut Government who are the section 35 rights holders and the other local groups. We all agreed that permanent residents with a direct connection to the park could continue to carry out certain traditional activities in the park after its establishment. This reflected a consensus that was developed over a decade of study and discussions among Parks Canada, the Innu Nation, the Nunatsiavut Government and local user groups, including the organization that now calls itself NunatuKavut Community Council, or NCC.
The definition set out in the 2015 land transfer agreement limits traditional users to long-term residents of specific communities. This would include the many NCC members who are now long-term residents of these communities. At no time did anyone agree that all NCC members could be listed as traditional users.
Unfortunately, the proposed text of section 14 would improperly recognize all current and future members of NunatuKavut Community Council as traditional land users and provide all 6,000 of them with statutory rights within the national park reserve.
We say this is contrary to the agreements and to the purposes of Canada National Parks Act to move forward with proposed section 14 as drafted. Further, doing so would damage the ability of Canada to conclude a final agreement with the Innu Nation.
Last week, we heard the minister say that maintaining the distinction between rights holders and local users is essential and that he is willing to amend the bill to do so. We agree and say that provisions related to Akami-Uapishku should be amended to maintain the definitions of traditional users set out in the 2015 land transfer agreements.
Tshinashkumitanau. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Todd Russell, President, NunatuKavut Community Council: Nakurmiik, Madam Chair and honourable senators. My name is Todd Russell. I’m a proud Inuk and I come from a long line of Inuit. I am here as President of NunatuKavut Community Council, or NCC, representing some 6,000 Inuit from south and central Labrador.
The NCC is in support of Bill S-14 as tabled and, in particular, the language related to the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve. NunatuKavut means “our ancient land” and refers to our ancestral territory. Our ancestors have had a close and deep relationship with the lands and waters of NunatuKavut since time immemorial — long before European contact. NunatuKavut Inuit are the beneficiaries of the British-Inuit Treaty of 1765. This treaty is well documented. As a people, we uphold and celebrate it today.
Many of our families and people have faced the impact of residential schools and have described the lasting impacts of loss of language, feelings of disconnection and many forms of abuse. This past September, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador offered a residential schools apology to NunatuKavut Inuit in addition to the federal apology of 2017.
Pervasive forms of colonization have sought to destroy our ancestral forms of governance, meaning that someone else tried to impose guidelines of how we take care of each other, our kin and our lands. Today, our people are rising up and have determined that we will no long longer be displaced on our own lands. We are determined that our future generations will live, learn and grow in the same places as our ancestors. We stand with our people and uphold their rights as Inuit.
Our journey for recognition by the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been a long one. We formed in the 1980s and first filed our comprehensive land claim with the federal government in 1991 based on our Inuit ancestry. We have made many significant steps in achieving recognition with the courts, with commissions and with the United Nations. We have also had a number of long-standing agreements with both the federal and provincial governments. We signed an MOU on reconciliation with Canada in 2019. The MOU recognizes us as an Indigenous collective capable of holding section 35 rights.
Our people have had a long-standing connection to the lands, waters and ice in and around the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve. Inuit traditional knowledge and land use show extensive hunting, harvesting and trapping activities by NunatuKavut Inuit, and many NunatuKavut Inuit live in and around the park reserve in adjacent communities. Our people know their ancestral lands well, and we are determined to defend our lands and people. Exclusionary policies and politically motivated attempts to displace us on our lands can never be accepted.
NCC has played a central role in the creation of the park, and we have been engaged in discussions with Parks Canada for over 20 years. In 2015, NCC and Parks Canada signed a framework for consultation and cooperative management under a shared understanding agreement, or SUA, wherein we assert Inuit rights in the park. We can accept nothing less.
NCC has been working in good faith with Parks Canada to implement the terms of the SUA, which include the creation of the NunatuKavut Consensus Board. The SUA allows for our people to carry on traditional activities as proposed in the bill. Bill S-14 establishes the Mealy Mountains Park as a national park reserve with the full protection of the Canada National Parks Act, subject to outstanding Indigenous claims. Those outstanding Indigenous claims are our own and the Innu Nation’s, which are at different stages in the land claims process.
The bill confirms that traditional land users can carry on traditional activities. The definition of traditional land users includes both Indigenous and non-Indigenous traditional users, and the inclusion of NCC members as traditional land users implements the provisions of the SUA.
We have already established that we are Indigenous rights holders to the satisfaction of Canada and the courts. The outstanding questions are the nature of those rights and who the beneficiaries of those rights are. Those are the questions that are outstanding. Our inclusion as traditional land users allows us to exercise our traditional activities while those discussions continue.
Amendments to the bill to remove the language recognizing NCC members as traditional land users will leave us with fewer rights than non-Indigenous users. This is akin to the era of Parks Canada displacing Indigenous peoples from their territory and trying to sever connections to our lands, ice and waters. It would also put Canada in breach of the honour of the Crown and its obligations under the SUA and would be an infringement of our treaty rights.
The protections included in Bill S-14 have been arrived at after many decades of hard work. It has been done in collaboration with all levels of government, including Indigenous groups and governments. It has been done with extensive community input. It will be important that the Senate recognize and honour the significant work and steps in the creation of the park reserve.
In closing, we submit that the language in Bill S-14, although not perfect around the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve, should be adopted as tabled.
I thank you for listening to me, and I welcome any questions you may have. Nakurmiik.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
We will now begin the question period.
[English]
Senator White: Thank you to the panel. I am certainly very much in awe of the work of both of you, being from Newfoundland and Labrador myself.
My question is for Mr. Russell. Thank you for your presentation and thank you for the material you emailed last night and again today. I’m pleased that we’ve reached a place in society where we can actually talk to each other.
I need you to understand the context before I ask my question. As you know, since 2009, the island portion of Newfoundland and Labrador created a landless band. Through that process, some 100,000 people came forward seeking recognition as status Indians under the Indian Act. As a Mi’kmaw woman who was Indian before Indian was cool, I am very challenged to concede that one in every five islander is Indian.
We know that the process there was flawed, and there are registered Indians under the Indian Act who are now taking space that’s ours by purporting these traditions and purporting these things that are not accurate. The new phenomenon of “pretend Indians” is very concerning. I don’t like that word in particular because it’s another term that lessens the severity of what’s happening. When you say “pretend,” you think of kids playing, where it is actually fraud. It is fraud to say that you are something you are not. So the damage on the island portion, which is what I am referring to, is catastrophic because they are replacing us by erasing us.
I guess I should point out that this committee or the Senate of Canada cannot determine legitimacy. We have no right to say who you are or who you are not. However, as a member of this committee and someone from the island who is very familiar with both of your organizations, I think we need to understand how the group you represent now, Mr. Russell, as NunatuKavut Inuit people, was once known as the Labrador Métis Association. If you could help us understand, I think that would be very helpful for me personally.
Mr. Russell: Thank you, Senator White. I certainly appreciate the question. First, let me take the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. You’re one of the newer senators in the Senate. Certainly, I want to offer my congratulations to you.
Thank you for the question. It sometimes comes up for sure. I think that in what you said, we need to place things in context. You described your particular context and what was happening with the Mi’kmaq on the island. Of course, there is more to that story than what you related. You related from 2009 on, but the Mi’kmaq story of recognition — of identity — was certainly something that was happening in the late 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s. It is in that political context that I want to tell you our story within NunatuKavut.
It was in the late 1960s and in the 1970s that there was a lot of political formation. Groups were being formed to fight for their recognition and their rights. National groups were being formed. Regional groups were being formed. Specific, geographically based groups were being formed around this country, and it was certainly in flux within the province itself, as Senator White describes it. There were Mi’kmaw organizations on the island. There were some Inuit organizations in Labrador — the Labrador Inuit Association. There was once an organization called the Indian and Metis Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, which, from my understanding, even included Mi’kmaq, Innu and others at that particular time. So political organization, political advocacy and political representation certainly were in flux. It was no different for Labrador or for our people.
Many organizations were forming in the Inuit context within Labrador. The Labrador Inuit Association formed in the early 1970s, and it was an organization that concentrated on Inuit on the north coast of Labrador, even though at that particular time there were discussions about whether more southern communities and Inuit should be included or not. Eventually, the Labrador Inuit Association said no. That certainly left a lot of Indigenous people in central Labrador and on the south coast of Labrador without any representation. Who were these people? These were Inuit. These were mixed bloods on the coast of Labrador. Many of our people share genealogy, history and culture with what is now Nunatsiavut on the north coast.
It was at this particular time when things were in flux and our people didn’t have representation that, yes, they decided to get together. Who was in those first meetings about forming an organization that eventually became known as the Labrador Métis Association? They were the Inuit from central and southern Labrador — the mixed bloods, primarily. They formed a group called Métis, and it was being done at a time when the term “Métis,” as a matter of policy, was certainly being pushed by the federal government. If you weren’t in an Inuit organization or, say, at the time, an Indian organization, then where would you go? Where would you go to find representation? Where would you go to find the resources to be able to move forward with your advocacy — with your representation? So, yes, the people at that time adopted the term “Métis” — the Labrador Métis Association — but that never changed who we were. That never changed our history, our culture and our language. For example, here today, I can say that we do a lot of work trying to revitalize Inuktitut because that is what our ancestral language is. That’s the work we do that makes us Inuit.
As we worked through our political formation and governance, we submitted a land claim in 1991. That land claim was based on our Inuit rights, our Inuit identity, our Inuit culture and our Inuit heritage. Ever since we have been promoting and strengthening our Inuit governance and our Inuit way of life.
In 2010, we changed our name from the Labrador Métis Association — then Labrador Métis Nation — to NunatuKavut Community Council to better reflect our Inuit identity, our strengthened governance and our Inuit governance. That gives you a little bit of a sense of how this word came to be and how it influenced, I think, some of the discussions.
But I can firmly say very clearly that in the early 1980s, there was no group of non-Indigenous people sitting around trying to concoct a story and an identity that somehow made us Indigenous, and then somewhere along the line the same group got together and said, “Oh, my gracious, now we should all identify something differently.”
This was not the way it happened. Our story is one like many stories around this country. You can see them in the Northwest Territories. Large Métis organizations formed in the Northwest Territories in the 1980s, and then today, many of those people are now in other Indigenous organizations.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Russell, I have a list of senators who want to ask questions.
Mr. Russell: Sorry, yes.
The Deputy Chair: It is very interesting. I didn’t want to interrupt —
Mr. Russell: I hope that helps to answer the question, but thank you for asking. Hopefully, that gives people at least some better understanding of our story.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, sir.
Senator MacDonald: I think I’ll direct my question to Mr. Russell as well. I’m going to wade into these questions of Indigeneity, and I have to say I have no stake in this, and I have no preconceived assumptions on this.
Mr. Russell, in your brief to the committee, you reference the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples’ recognition of NunatuKavut’s historical rootedness. I’ve learned from colleagues such as Senator Patterson over the years that the Inuit Nunangat is very large and spans from Labrador to northern Quebec and up to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. I must say that it’s pretty impressive how Inuit, who are a relatively small population of people spread over a huge area, can stay so cohesive and close-knit, despite it being such a large geographical area.
I guess my question to you is this: If you have been able to exhibit historical rootedness, as you describe it, and you have a strong Inuit identity, why is it that the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Natan Obed, continues to call your claims illegitimate? And why is your Inuit community apparently the only one disconnected from the broader Inuit Nunangat community?
Mr. Russell: In terms of what Mr. Natan Obed’s, I guess, modus operandi is or his motivation, I can only let him speak to that.
I agree with you: Our community has the historical rootedness and the social cohesiveness, as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples said in 1996, that we could rise to the definition of “nationhood” as described by the Royal Commission —
Senator MacDonald: I didn’t say that. I’m quoting you.
Mr. Russell: Yes, the Royal Commission said that.
In terms of your description of Inuit Nunangat, I would say that Inuit Nunangat is in our territory, Nunangat meaning “the homeland.” Well, no doubt — in central and southern Labrador, Inuit were there, Inuit are there, and Inuit will remain there. We are going nowhere. This is our land; this is our home. In terms of juxtaposing us against some definition of Inuit Nunangat, we are a part of the Inuit homeland. We are a part of it.
In terms of your comment about us sort of not being socially accepted, maybe, that’s a very interesting question. There is a reality that exists in Labrador that many of the NunatuKavut members now are related, are actual kin by blood, by culture and by language of those within Nunatsiavut. This is a reality that exists. So if Mr. Natan Obed or somebody within Nunatsiavut is disavowing us, in fact, they are disavowing their own families and their own kin. I find that pretty perverse, to be quite frank with you, that these types of allegations are being made about people’s own families.
Sir, all I can say to you is that Inuit existed on the coast of Labrador in the area that I live in, the area that my parents and my grandparents live in, and where my great-great-grandparents, my great-great-great-great-grandparents and my ancestors lived in. Inuit are there and were there before Europeans.
I am here today as a witness that we still exist in these areas and in these places, as do the rest of my people, to give witness to our presence, our identity and our place.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will ask my question in French.
You know, it is very difficult for those of us here who are not Indigenous to understand the arguments and the consequences of what you are saying. There are indeed a number of Indigenous groups that are seeking recognition currently. Here, we are working within the framework of a bill pertaining to a national park in order to protect that land, which I expect is one of your goals, and which allows traditional activities.
Does the bill in its current form prevent traditional activities within the park? If so, why? What kind of recognition are you seeking before your rights are officially recognized?
I apologize if I am making mistakes. This is a subject that I am not completely familiar with, but I am trying to understand the direct impact of what you are saying about the creation of a park which seeks to respect animal species and traditional ways of life.
[English]
Mr. Russell: Thank you for that question. It’s an important question.
The way that this park has been developed, it has been developed in a way that is trying to respect all Indigenous peoples who have a connection and a history with the park. It is also trying, I think, to understand that there might be non-Indigenous peoples, obviously, who have some connection to these areas as well.
In terms of this park, there’s a category of “traditional user,” which really tries to understand with respect to, say, our group, what types of activities and what types of presence we have in the park, and how that can be honoured, and how those connections can continue to be preserved.
We do, obviously, appreciate and understand the importance of having that traditional user category within this particular park because it allows us to maintain some of our traditional activities while we’re working out some of the broader questions about Indigenous rights.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But does this bill, as it is written, prevent you from doing any traditional activity in the park?
Mr. Russell: The bill itself will allow for traditional activities to occur in the park, and our agreement, our shared understanding agreement with Parks Canada, would help to animate that in the sense that it would give us the underpinnings, the legal underpinnings to be able to go out there and be able to participate in these activities.
I would say that the only limitation is that there is a prescribed list of traditional activities, 12 or 13 of them, and there are other activities that could be contemplated that we would like to have an avenue to work out with Parks Canada. From where we sit, our shared understanding agreement with Parks Canada allows us some process and some opportunity to be able to explore that with Parks Canada.
In short, the bill itself goes some way in terms of honouring traditional activities by traditional users. There could be ways to strengthen those connections because they are so huge for conservation and for all of the values that we want to promote in the park itself. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: I had met with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, or CAP, group from Newfoundland and I asked them at that time for information about how they determined membership. To this day, I have never received information on how you determine that, so I just want to put that on the board.
I want to come back to the question I asked this morning about “time immemorial” and the importance of the term because it’s pre-contact. When you talk about mixed bloods, that’s not pre-contact; that’s post-contact. It doesn’t matter how many ancestors you have whom people have reached out to, that blood doesn’t determine time immemorial for them. It doesn’t.
My question is to Mr. Penashue. What is the importance of “time immemorial,” and what does it mean to First Nations and Inuit who are the rights holders in this country?
Mr. Penashue: Section 35 is based on rights of Indigenous people who had rights prior to the arrival of Europeans. There’s a test that Indigenous groups have to go through to meet that.
Todd Russell’s group, NunatuKavut, was turned down four times. They did not meet the test four times. They were turned down three times by the Liberal government and one time by the Conservative government. They did not meet the test.
What has been happening in Labrador, like you pointed out, is extraordinary. There’s a phenomenon happening in Canada, and I don’t know who is going to stop it, but there are Indigenous groups springing up from everywhere, and Labrador is no exception. There’s a new group apparently starting up in the Lower North Shore of Quebec based on the NunatuKavut model.
NunatuKavut is more structured and more organized than any of the groups across the country because there are 6,000 members, and they vote as a bloc. The Liberal government is terrified of this group. Do you want that seat in Labrador? You’re going to have to comply to the wishes of the NunatuKavut. The government knows they can’t go through the front door, because they don’t qualify, so what do they do? They’re always encouraging the group to go through the back door. And this is a back door.
We did not know that NunatuKavut was going to be referenced in this bill when we spent hours and hours negotiating with the national park. We accommodated his people in Cartwright, and there was no reference to NunatuKavut. On Monday of last week, we hear that NunatuKavut is front and centre in the bill. We immediately rushed to Ottawa to make a presentation to the committee, letting them know that this is not right and this is not what was negotiated. We had spent hours and hours in the boardrooms with national parks in the provinces in Canada to make sure that the wording was accommodating to all people.
And so this is a real shock to us when we see that NunatuKavut is front and centre in the bill, and the Inuit people are pencilled out. What is wrong? There’s somebody in government — is Yvonne Jones that influential that you can pencil out Innu people and insert NunatuKavut in there, a new group that does not qualify under section 35 and a group that did not exist prior to 1980? It was a Métis group that morphed into an Inuit group only because there’s no money in being Métis. There are no programs and services and no land claims processes. Oh, there’s nothing here, so let’s go over there. Let’s join the Inuit group, but the Inuit group doesn’t recognize NunatuKavut.
The Inuit Circumpolar Council doesn’t recognize NunatuKavut. Nunatsiavut doesn’t recognize NunatuKavut. Natan Obed’s group doesn’t recognize NunatuKavut. Who is recognizing NunatuKavut? What is the fuss? They have been creating fundamental changes in Labrador, particularly in the areas where legitimate land claims processes are taking place. Who is going to stop it? Who has the courage? Because it’s getting out of hand. It’s not just happening in Labrador; it’s happening right across the country. Someone has to stop it.
At some point, taxpayers are just going to have to say, “Hold on here,” and then everybody is going to be affected. Legitimate Aboriginal groups are going to be affected.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Penashue: It’s not realistic what’s going on.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses. I want to ask Mr. Penashue a couple of questions.
Sir, in your role as a negotiator for the Innu Nation, how do you perceive the balance between national park regulations and the preservation of Innu culture and land rights? Considering your experience, what are your thoughts on the impact of national park regulations on traditional Innu land uses and practices? Are there pros and cons?
I do have a question for Mr. Russell as well, which is, from your perspective, sir, as President of the NunatuKavut Community Council, how do national park regulations affect your community’s access to and use of the traditional lands? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of the national park regulations on cultural and environmental preservation efforts?
Those are my two questions. I know there’s legal counsel here. If there’s a chance, I would like Mr. Innes to answer, subject to what Mr. Penashue says, about the legal context of some of these regulations and how they affect treaty rights or Indigenous rights. Maybe Mr. Penashue can answer that.
Mr. Russell, I know Mr. Simon is here, and I’d like to know from a legal perspective what the key considerations are in balancing some of the environmental conservation objectives with the traditional rights and practices.
Mr. Penashue: Let me start by saying that when we started the land claims process in 1990, our intention was to try to protect as much land as possible within that time frame because we wanted to make sure that land was going to be there for our children and grandchildren.
We were at a meeting here in Ottawa, and we were told by Indian Affairs at the time that the way it works is that our numbers determine the size of our lands. When we looked at our numbers, the quantum of land that we would get was very small. It was very disappointing. We were very upset.
Pien Penashue, one of the descendants of Pien Pastitshi from Akami-Uapisku, was at our meeting. We were sitting around talking about how we can protect as much land as we possibly could. We talked about the national park and whether it’s something we should explore. Pien stood up and said, “Yes, let’s explore the national park to make sure that we have rights within that park and that we can work toward that.”
We met with the Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada that afternoon. This was in the middle of the 1990s. That’s when we started the whole process of feasibility studies. We’ve spent the last 20 years working through the feasibility studies and working to try to include all of the people involved in the national park. That’s why we made an accommodation for the people in Cartwright, people who live close to the national park. We didn’t reference them as “NunatuKavut,” but we referenced them as “the local people.” That’s why we were shocked when we saw the NunatuKavut was front and centre to the bill. It was not part of the discussion when we negotiated the MOUs and PIBA.
So when you talk about rights, the rights of the national park come under the land claims process. There are Innu Nation settlement lands. We have rights in those areas, and that’s why we made accommodation to the people of Cartwright.
But when you bring a new group into the process when it hasn’t been thought through, they have 6,000 members. If we follow through the way the bill is worded, you could potentially have 6,000 people or families within that 6,000-member group building cabins. They would have the legal right to do so. That’s not what was envisioned.
Senator Arnot: Sir, you’re very upset with what has happened here. You have raised that with the minister. What were his reactions to your concerns?
Mr. Penashue: The minister, in our conversation with him, was very concerned. He’s asking the same question: How did this get into this bill? How?
The national park is asking themselves — and now they’re pointing fingers: “He did it.” “No, she did it.” Someone is obviously going to lose their job over it, and now they’re pointing fingers.
There has to be some coordination here. We had spent many years talking to Parks Canada, determining how this is going to unfold as we move to this stage. Suddenly, something else springs up.
Senator Arnot: This is a last-minute surprise to you.
Mr. Penashue: Absolutely. We weren’t even consulted. The agreement says that if there are any changes, we have to be consulted. We found out through people who were doing some research.
Mr. Russell: Thank you for your question. Let’s be clear: Our claim has never been rejected. You can search whatever records you want. There’s never a letter on file to NCC about our claim being rejected. The only response we got back is that we can enter into additional processes to provide supplementary information in order to move forward with our claim. In 2019, we signed an MOU on the recognition of Indigenous rights and self-determination with Canada that says that we are an Indigenous collective capable of holding section 35 rights and that we have some things to sort out, like the beneficiaries and what the nature of those rights might look like. That’s what happened when it comes to the claim.
In terms of Parks Canada, it’s very rich for people to come here now and say, “We’ve only discovered that NunatuKavut was included in the park’s development.” In 2015, we signed an agreement with Parks Canada called the shared understanding agreement, which outlined our participation, involvement in the park. Within there, it talks about us as Inuit, our connection and where we want to go. That shared understanding agreement talks about the traditional uses and how they apply to NunatuKavut Inuit.
So it shouldn’t be a shock to anybody that something like this is happening now. We’re not just some new group; we’ve been on this land for a hell of a long time, as I’ve said. My people have been here. We know this land; we know where it’s at; we know our relatives; we know our kin; we know our traditions; and we have a language, and that language is Inuktitut.
These are the realities —
Senator Arnot: I would like some clarification: You’re aware now of Mr. Penashue’s concerns, and you brought it to the attention of the minister. Have you had any discussions with the minister about these very issues and how they could be resolved?
Mr. Russell: I haven’t spoken directly to the minister. We’ve certainly spoken to their officials. What we have been told is that our SUA, our shared understanding agreement, and our ability to use the park as a traditional user will remain intact, regardless of whether there are some amendments to this particular bill. That is what we have been told by Parks Canada.
That agreement that has been in place since 2015 — eight years — is only being actioned through this particular legislation now.
Senator Arnot: I concede my time to the rest of the senators. Thank you.
Senator Wells: My question is to Mr. Innes, the legal counsel for the Innu Nation.
Mr. Innes, what are the legal implications of the current wording of Bill S-14? In your legal opinion, how might these contentious clauses be amended?
Larry Innes, Legal Counsel, Innu Nation: Thank you, Senator Wells, for the question.
As you’ve heard, there’s significant controversy as to what the status of the NunatuKavut Community Council and its members is, as Mr. Penashue has outlined. They have not been accepted into a land claims process. Their status as potential section 35 rights holders has yet to be determined. That process is under the direction of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, not the Minister of Environment. This legislation concerning the Canada National Parks Act is directed at the establishment of Akami-Uapishku as a national park reserve and its addition to Schedule 2 of the Canada National Parks Act.
It is not the place, from a legal perspective, to make determinations about rights. Yet, Bill S-14 proposes to add as traditional users all members of a not-for-profit society known as the NunatuKavut Community Council. We say that is completely inappropriate. The 2015 agreements referenced by Mr. Russell, including his own shared understanding agreement, relied on a definition of “traditional user” that was developed, as Mr. Penashue indicated, through a feasibility study at a steering committee involving Innu Nation, Parks Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Nunatsiavut Government and, yes, the NCC or, as it then was, the Labrador Métis Nation.
In that process, in those recommendations, you will find no reference to including members of a not-for-profit society as traditional users. You will find a list of defined communities. You will find a list of criteria set out. You will find those definitions in the land transfer agreement, which is the legal instrument that transferred administration of control from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to Canada for the purposes of national park creation.
Bill S-14 proposes to depart from those definitions and to add, as you’ll see in the text of the bill, a new paragraph (b) admitting all members of the NunatuKavut Community Council to the status of “traditional land users,” no matter where they live or what connection they may have to the park.
As some of the previous questions from some of the senators have indicated, the membership of this organization is extremely cloudy. Innu Nation doesn’t know who they are, where they live, or what degree or connection of Indigeneity they may possess. All of those things are in doubt. What can be determined on the basis of the 2015 land transfer agreement is whether someone qualifies as a traditional user based on their place of residence and the duration of that residence in that defined place.
That is the agreement that was made between all parties, and that is the agreement that we say this bill should reflect.
Senator Wells: Thank you for that. So, in removing those provisions that might address something longer term for NunatuKavut, you’re saying this is better served or addressed under a different ministry under, perhaps, a different act or agreement. Is that correct?
Mr. Innes: Yes, let me just expand on the process. As it is right now, NunatuKavut is not recognized as a section 35 group. Mr. Russell has been very careful to say, “capable of holding section 35 rights,” which is not the same as having section 35 rights. There are two section 35 rights holders in Labrador, the Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut Government.
The members of those organizations are able to exercise their constitutionally protected rights within the national park reserve in accordance with, in the case of Nunatsiavut, their treaty, their Park Impacts and Benefits Agreement, and in the case of the Innu, in accordance with their incremental treaty agreement and the terms of their Park Impacts and Benefits Agreement and, ultimately, final agreement, which we anticipate being concluded in 2024.
For NCC, the door remains — the same door they have tried to get through since 1991 — meeting the necessary tests to conclude agreements for recognition as section 35 rights holders. If that ever occurs, there is a pathway for them to be recognized and to be afforded those rights through the proper processes by the Government of Canada. The Canada National Parks Act is not that process, and we say this is, as Mr. Penashue indicated, the back door, and the back door should not be used to settle this question.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Honourable Michèle Audette: I would like to thank Senator Anderson for allowing me to be here [words spoken in Innu-Aimum].
[English]
I was saying in Innu, “Welcome to the two of you.”
I will try to do this in English so I won’t be emotional because the Nitassinan is my home, my identity, my culture, and it is a place where I remind myself there are 10,000 years of existence or beauty or empowerment.
At the same time, I am a former president of Quebec Native Women. I do understand it is a movement, a non-profit organization, knowing that the Native Alliance of Quebec , a member of Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, would do a great job, great work, but we’re not government. We’re not allowed to pretend to be a government in my world, and even one of the organization members of CAP lost in court in Quebec. They are not a nation, and they cannot pretend to be a government or a nation. I understand that, and we have to respect that.
So, Mr. Penashue, knowing that some non-profit organizations have rights to exist and to do good and to be involved, how can we make sure that this bill or other bills — because I came here to make sure that we are protected, that we don’t exclude, but we do understand who should be included and who should be a partner.
How can we make sure that it doesn’t come back again, this uncomfortable space? I understand public servants didn’t get the right history, so they don’t understand. They want to do good. How can we make sure as senators that it is not coming back, in this bill and other bills, so if we want to do nation to nation, we go with government and not MOU, because for me it is not legally binding, but with government to government? How do we do that?
Mr. Penashue: [Indigenous language spoken]
My comments are that if there was no money in this national park or in the relationship with government, we would still be Innu. We were there when there was no money. We come from a very poor background. Back in the 1960s and the 1970s, we weren’t even recognized as being Indigenous because of the 1949 entry of Newfoundland into Canada. We weren’t recognized.
So we were Innu. We stayed together, hunted together and fished together and we were poor together. It has only been in the recent times that we started negotiating resource benefits from the mining sector, from hydro and started being recognized by governments that we were starting to do well. If the plug were pulled tomorrow, and there was no money in it, we would still be Innu. We are not going anywhere. I cannot say the same thing about this group. If there was no money, they would disappear, and there are a lot of these people across the country who are springing up because of money. If there was no money, you wouldn’t hear a thing from this group.
I don’t know who will stop it. You’re asking that question. Do you know that if the Assembly of First Nations decided on a system of one man, one vote, Newfoundland would determine the national chief — Newfoundland — because of the numbers. It’s getting ridiculous. No one is saying anything because more and more people are coming because of money. It’s very concerning, and the same thing is happening in Labrador.
Senator Audette: My question was what we can do so it doesn’t come back.
Mr. Penashue: Go through the front door. If NunatuKavut wants to be recognized as an Indigenous group, go through the front door. Don’t go through the back door on different projects, which is what they are doing, and they are being a nuisance right now. They are doing all this under the back door operation. If they want to be recognized, go through the front door, and if you are recognized, great. If you are not, well, you didn’t qualify.
Mr. Russell: Senator, thank you for the question. The NCC — the allegation that somehow we choose a certain organization to go for money — I can tell you, Mr. Penashue, that we have been surviving on so little for so long that we know how to make our way with very, very little these days, and I would put our budget up against anybody else’s. Our Inuit brothers and sisters up in Nunatsiavut have a $100-million budget; NCC, $10 million, $15 million.
That is not the reason we are here. I’m here to fight for our people’s rights and recognition. I began my own personal journey with this in 1992 and have continued ever since. Our people have been here since time immemorial, and we have been fighting for our way ever since. We had agency in the 1700s, we had agency in the 1800s, and we have agency today about how we live our lives, about the decisions we make. We are who we are. We are going nowhere. We are Inuit. We come from Inuit. We are on the lands of our ancestors. We haven’t moved. This is who we are.
Mr. Penashue: How come they don’t recognize you in that case if that’s true?
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We still have two senators who want to ask questions. We only have six minutes left, so if you agree, we will go with Senator Patterson.
Senator D. Patterson: I will try to be quick. Mr. Russell, you spoke about the 2019 MOU with Canada, and it leaves two questions to be resolved: the nature of your rights and the beneficiaries of those rights.
In paragraph 21, the MOU also provides that it is desirable that the overlaps, which is essentially what we’re talking about today, be addressed directly by discussions between your group and the affected groups, which would be the rights holders — the Innu Nation and Nunatsiavut. My question is how far along those discussions are. Where are you at?
Mr. Russell: Thank you very much. I would note that in other agreements, like the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement, there are also provisions for overlap talks and discussions. Even within the Innu Nation’s agreement in principle there are also provisions.
Senator D. Patterson: How far along are you?
Mr. Russell: We have been working on some issues over the years; we’ve been in the same rooms working on some initiatives together. In terms of land rights discussions, there have not been discussions. We have reached out to the various groups. I reach out again today to Mr. Penashue. If there are discussions that can be had with his organization, I would love to have those particular discussions to see through our differences, and the same for Nunatsiavut. But today, no, those discussions have not taken place.
Senator D. Patterson: As I understand it, you have not achieved overlap agreements as set out in the 2019 MOU. In fact, there have been no discussions. You have not even got an MOU on your desire to have your rights recognized with the Crown, and — this is a public information — you’re in litigation with the Innu Nation on this very question.
Is it not premature to enshrine in law rights reserved for traditional land users like the Innu Nation and the Innu of Nunatsiavut to your group?
Mr. Russell: Are you making the assumption that because we are included in Bill S-14, that is now a formal recognition of Indigenous rights? My understanding of the clause in Bill S-14 is that it really is about a fulfillment of the land transfer agreement and, of course, the traditional user group and including us in that. That is simply what it is. It is a placeholder for NunatuKavut Community Council where we are in terms of our rights recognition process. It is the same thing for the interim treaty agreement that the Innu Nation has. It is different for Nunatsiavut because they have a settled land claim.
To your point, all groups have overlap provisions; even Nunatsiavut and the Innu Nation have overlap provisions. As far as I know, they have not arrived at overlap agreements even in their context. I think to say that you have not reached agreement here, and what that means anyway, at the end of the day — this is happening in all kinds of dynamics. It is just not particular to NunatuKavut Inuit and the NunatuKavut Community Council.
There certainly is opportunity. I think we should always have the opportunity to be talking, to be sitting down with one another to arrive at deeper understandings of where people are and their priorities. We offer that. We have no problem telling our story. I’m very happy that this committee gave us the opportunity to come here today and speak.
Senator McCallum: Under the proposed section 41.6(1) of the bill, it says:
For the purposes of subsections 5(1) and 6(2), leases, licences of occupation, easements, permits . . . deemed not to encumber or affect title to those lands, but if those lands become a park, those instruments continue in effect —
— for the people who already have title to those lands. And then the NunatuKavut is now inserted. I have asked this question how this section seems to go against putting non-rights holders into this section, and they couldn’t answer it. That’s the question that I wanted to ask Mr. Penashue.
Mr. Penashue: Larry, can you answer that question, please?
Mr. Innes: Thank you for the question, senator. The issue is right. The existing cabins within the national park would be grandfathered, subject to the conditions set out in the National Parks Act and other agreements.
Our concern is that if NunatuKavut is included as traditional land users and if the cabin provisions in the bill as presented go forward, it again provides a back door for NunatuKavut members to establish those licences and establish those occupations outside of existing footprints of cabins.
That was our 2015 agreement. That’s what you will find in the 2015 land transfer agreement. These provisions again, as with the definition of traditional land user, go well beyond the land transfer agreement text. That is what this bill should reflect, not subsequent agreements or other understandings or confusion on the part of Parks Canada officials.
Mr. Russell: Madam Chair, would it be okay if our lawyer could respond to that? It is a very legal question.
The Deputy Chair: If it’s possible.
Derek A. Simon, Legal Counsel NunatuKavut Community Council: Briefly, the provisions around cabins are subject to the discretion of the minister, and the discretion of the minister is subject to the overriding conservation objectives of the parks. I’ve heard comments that suggest that folks think if the bill goes forward as currently worded, that will lead to 6,000 cabins or tilts being established in the park. That is not what the bill says. The bill says traditional land users may establish cabins or tilts in the park subject to permission from the minister, and that permission would always be exercised in a way that serves the overriding conservation objectives. There is no way that number of cabins and tilts will be established in the park.
Mr. Innes: I would point out —
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, that was a very interesting discussion. Thank you all. Your contributions will be taken into consideration by senators. I thank senators and our witnesses for your participation today.
In preparation for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-14 on Thursday, December 7, 2023, members who wish to propose amendments should consult the assigned legal counsel from the Office the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to ensure they are drafted in the proper format and in both official languages.
(The committee adjourned.)