THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 7, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:19 a.m. [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 will begin with a reminder that, before asking and answering questions, members are asked to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or to 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: I’m Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut.
Senator Oh: Good morning, I’m Senator Oh from Ontario.
Senator White: Good morning, Judy White, Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.
[English]
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), through clause-by-clause consideration.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a few things. If, at any time, you don’t know where we are in the process, please feel free to ask for clarification. I want to make sure that every one of us knows where we are at all times.
[English]
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. Therefore, before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity to do so.
[Translation]
Staff will endeavour to keep track of the places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them. Since no notice is required to move amendments, it is obviously possible that no preliminary analysis of the amendments has been done to establish which of them may affect or conflict with other clauses.
[English]
If any committee members have questions about the process or the propriety of anything that is occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
[Translation]
The committee is, of course, the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a senator can appeal a ruling to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained. As deputy chair, I will do my best to ensure that all senators who wish to speak can do so. However, I will have to rely on your co-operation in this regard and I would ask you to look at the facts and to speak as briefly as possible.
[English]
Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can now proceed.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration 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)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Before I begin, I would like to give the floor to Senator Arnot, who has a few questions for the public servants here today, since it relates to the amendments he intended to move.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Thank you to my colleagues. I know some colleagues are here today who haven’t been at all of the meetings, so I’ll give context to what I will say. I appreciate that the folks from Parks Canada are here to hear what I have to say and perhaps answer some questions.
Colleagues, the committee heard from several witnesses that our national parks are not just expanses of land, they are fundamentally part of our country’s natural heritage and a legacy that we must hold in trust for future generations. That was very clear. Witnesses also recognized that the Canada National Parks Act is critical to the preservation of our natural landscapes and needs significant updating.
The amendments that I may put forward this morning build in part on a conversation we had with Dr. Lem, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, a very well-known, articulate and strong advocacy group for the protection of Canada’s environment. Particularly, she centred around the need for public engagement and the need to put a positive duty on officials. By positive duty, she meant to provide “shall” and “must” conditions in the act.
With respect to public engagement, in my opinion, she was really talking about civil society — all the organizations that have a stake in preserving our national parks, including — foremost — Indigenous organizations. I think this provides an opportunity to engage the community in a deeper way.
What I’m referring to is actually clause 2, but I have other clauses, and it would be better to put the whole thing into one context. I will put it forward, perhaps. I do know there are concerns, and I know that Mr. Campbell and Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Aubin will address their issues.
Fundamentally, I will perhaps be putting this forward in the clear thesis of trying to foster an inclusion for conservation, particularly in three groups. There is the community engagement from a non-profit or NGO. Our communities are the life of our country, and their involvement in park management is crucial. By engaging local communities, we ensure that the parks will serve their needs and benefit from local knowledge and local commitment — people who are on the ground. That’s the general principle I’m trying to put forward here.
The second group is academics and researchers. The involvement of academics brings a wealth of scientific knowledge and research capabilities. This collaboration is vital for understanding and preserving the ecological integrity of our parks.
Then there are the indigenous participants. Perhaps most importantly, the amendments recognize that the invaluable role of Indigenous organizations and their traditional knowledge and deep connection to the lands are indispensable in our conservation efforts.
The path forward here with this amendment that I may propose demonstrates a commitment to a more inclusive, knowledgeable and sustainable approach to conservation. Again, our national parks are not just parcels of land. They are a testament to our respect for nature, our dedication to preservation and our commitment to future generations. I have one amendment. There is a second very consequential amendment — it’s just legal draftsmanship.
Then there are two other amendments, and that is putting forth the idea of the positive duty. When I get a chance, I’ll speak to them, if necessary, but I would just remind my colleagues that the third and fourth amendments require the national park visitors to proactively avoid causing harms, disturbances or degradation to the environment or animals in the park, and they place a duty on the officials to take obligatory action. They do this either by the use of the word “shall” or by the word “must” so they are obliged to do so.
These amendments are intended to ensure the preservation of the ecological integrity in the park. They are intended to support sustainable tourism. Tourism is not just a buzz word. It’s a necessity. By requiring visitors to minimize their impact, we ensure that these natural treasures remain unspoiled for future generations. The concept of “leave no trace” is globally recognized as the standard for outdoor ethics, and it emphasizes the importance of leaving the environment as one finds it, ensuring its longevity and continued enjoyment. So that’s a second principle behind why I’m putting these forward.
The educational value is the third issue. Proactively protecting the environment and wildlife in natural parks serves an educational purpose. It teaches visitors, especially younger generations, about the importance of conservation and respect for nature. Educational programs and guidelines can foster deeper understanding and appreciation of natural ecosystems, encouraging responsible behaviour.
The fourth principle is cultural and spiritual significance. As we know, many national parks hold significant cultural and spiritual value, particularly for Indigenous communities. Respecting these spaces to avoid harm is not just an environmental issue but a matter of cultural sensitivity and respect and, in my opinion, an element of reconciliation in the current context. Engaging with Indigenous groups to educate visitors about the cultural significance of these lands can enhance respect and understanding, leading to more conscientious behaviour by the whole community.
Wildlife well-being, I won’t remark much on that. I think it’s fairly straightforward. We need to protect the wildlife, obviously, from stress-related things that happen to wildlife if there is negative interaction with human activity.
Legal and ethical responsibility. Visitors to the park have a legal and ethical responsibility to protect the natural environment. National parks are public assets, and damaging them is akin to damaging a shared heritage. Laws and regulations in place to protect these areas underscore the collective agreement and the legal framework that prioritize conservation.
Economic implications is a seventh principle behind what I’m trying to put forward, and that is the degradation of parks would have significant economic implications negative to all principles that support the national parks system.
In summary, requiring visitors to proactively avoid harm to the environment and animals in the park is essential for ecological education, cultural, ethical and economic reasons.
Now, I have said all that to say this: I committed to Dr. Lem to put this forward. She raised the idea that she wanted to ensure that there was a positive duty on the minister to engage with civil society, and she felt that was a deficit, as did the academic witness who followed her. I can’t remember his name right now, but he supported the same notion. It’s that noble principle. We want the ministry and the minister to have access. We want those people in civil society and all of the organizations, including Indigenous organizations, to feel that they have access and that their views are valued. Of course, it was clear that Dr. Lem thought that was not the case and asked our committee to consider making an amendment to that nature, and that’s why I would put this forward, subject to our discussion with these witnesses here today.
I can say, I met with officials from the ministry’s office with Senator Sorensen last night, and I thought most of these issues were well discussed. However, early this morning, I found out that Parks Canada had concerns, and I thought the only way to address them was to allow the witnesses to respond and let my colleagues decide what they think.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Oh: Are there guidelines for people visiting any Parks Canada facility? I was going to ask the officials to explain what Senator Arnot is doing with the amendment, because those principles, I assume, are already in the Parks Canada handbook for visitors to the park. Maybe you can take it one step further.
Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada: Would you like us to respond?
Senator Arnot: Well, Mr. Campbell, you have indicated that you have concerns. My principal point here is that the amendment that will come up as number 2 says that the minister shall encourage — that’s the verb — public engagement in safeguarding Canada’s natural and cultural resources, including engagement by Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous organizations, representatives of park communities, members of the academic community, and representatives of non-profit and non-government organizations.
There is a reason Dr. Lem put this forward. She doesn’t feel that’s the case, and that is why this amendment is being put forward. She wants to be assured that there is an avenue and that the avenue is a two-way street, and apparently she doesn’t because she testified to that effect. So what’s wrong with this?
Mr. Campbell: Thanks, Senator Arnot.
I should say I’m not actually sure where you got the idea that I didn’t like the sentiment in it or those sorts of things, because certainly the sentiment is something that already exists in the actions of Parks Canada. Already the Parks Canada Agency Act has a requirement for the minister on a biannual basis to have a ministers’ round table where, in fact, these types of civil society, by definition, must be invited to the ministers’ round table to give input on the entire system that we have, so on all cultural resources that are under our responsibility and on all natural areas that are under our responsibility as well. So from that perspective, the Parks Canada Agency Act, which is the umbrella act over the Canada National Parks Act that has us moving forward, includes that as a portion of the legislation already.
The other thing that we have that must be tabled every 10 years in Parliament — so an actual parliamentary document — is the management plan for every one of the parks. In that management plan, there is a consultation duty within that, and again, consultation for all of these similar organizations, so that two-way back-and-forth; and then the document itself, having the weight of it being a parliamentary document is the other portion of that from where we see hopefully meeting what the witness had said.
The only issue that Parks Canada would have with the amendment as written is the fact that it’s expansive and very difficult for us to be able to take. It would be difficult to say if this has actually happened or not and what the remedies would be if it had not happened. It’s more on the legal side and not on the aspirational side. We share in your same aspiration to have that back-and-forth conversation with civil society. Obviously, it’s a duty, and a constitutional duty in many instances with Indigenous people where we have treaties or agreements, including Indigenous benefits agreements as well.
Those types of considerations we feel are already in there, but certainly from an aspirational perspective, senator, we share in your same aspiration with that. On the “shall,” the duty, that is the action we take today, but if it’s in legislation, that is the decision of legislators, not ourselves.
Senator Arnot: I don’t see a downside to the minister or the ministry in this amendment because it’s fairly open-ended, and the minister can decide, or some other person, I guess, whether he is encouraging public engagement. You said the minister, whoever it is, is always doing that. So what is the downside? It gives comfort to civil society, perhaps Indigenous organizations and bodies that, in the future, they will be engaged if they feel that they haven’t been in the past. Obviously, from the testimony, some do feel that way. That’s why they asked me to put this forward.
Mr. Campbell: I don’t know whether getting into debate — that is as the individual felt. From our perspective on the enforceability or the direction of it, I think we’re already following that.
The second burden is that it includes all natural and cultural resources in the country. That would be expanding within the Canada National Parks Act, because right now, everything within the act is bound by those things the minister has responsibility for. This would extend that outside of the areas that are within national parks and national marine conservation areas, I’m assuming.
Senator Arnot: So Canada’s natural and cultural resources that are inside the national parks would be something you could accept?
Mr. Campbell: I think it still leaves it open. I think we would need to look at that offline and get counsel on that.
Senator McCallum: Which amendment are we looking at here?
Senator Arnot: I haven’t put it forward yet. It would be number 2. I’m having this discussion to make that determination.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Senator Arnot: The other thing I have — and I understand you have a concern with it — is that I might put forward an amendment that says:
Every person has a duty to take measures to prevent the discharge or deposit in a park of a substance capable of degrading the park, injuring fauna, flora, cultural resources or endangering human health.
I understand your concern is that the words “every person” are too broad. I’m thinking that “every person who enters a national park” would be an amendment — who has a duty — so that it’s saying those who enter the park. Do you have any comment on that?
Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Planning, Parks Canada: Maybe I will pose that the second challenge here is that the person has a duty to take measures. To what extent is the duty, and to what definition is the measure? It would be largely personally driven in terms of how you would define that as an individual as to what measures the expectation. It’s really around the difficulty and the open-endedness of trying to define what the expectation is on that person.
Senator Arnot: The duty would eventually be defined by the courts, if necessary.
Ms. Cunningham: The duty could range from reporting, to taking physical action or attempting to mitigate in a variety of different ways. You can imagine a number of examples that would be far-reaching.
Senator Arnot: What would the probability be that such would be problematic? I suggest not much.
Ms. Cunningham: The onus would be on us as officials to make this an enforceable measure and judge whether a person has taken responsibility for that duty and whether we would be able to enforce whether they had.
Senator Arnot: That’s discretion. It’s a really important front-line discretion. I believe your employees, officers, et cetera, do that every day. This just gives them a tool to do it. They make the determination.
Senator D. Patterson: I’d like to thank the officials for being here and available to answer questions. Thank you for your understanding that you’re not going to participate in the debate but are here as a resource. In that connection, I’d like to ask a question.
Mr. Campbell, I understood from your discussion with Senator Arnot that you felt that the first amendment, while it does replicate what is already in the Parks Canada Agency Act, is, I think you said, expansive and difficult to measure the extent of encouraging public engagement — the words from Senator Arnot’s proposed amendment. My question is this: could that question not be defined in policy, assuming the amendment passes? Could that not be spelled out in policy or procedures that would be developed by the Parks Canada administration?
Mr. Campbell: At some point, yes, you certainly could. Within anything in an act, you can set it out again, as we know, in regulation, policy and procedures. In this case, though, it would be how you were then narrowing what, in fact, legislators have put forward. Normally, narrowing isn’t an approach that we would take in policy.
Maybe, if I could, where we would normally see those things to give us those aspirational goals are often in preambles of acts. That is not to say that might be a better place for it, because that would be outside of my point, but that’s normally where we would see those things that would help us in determining those sorts of large goals for the organization.
Senator D. Patterson: Would you or Ms. Cunningham comment on the same question with respect to the second amendment, which is the duty to take measures to prevent the discharge of a substance capable of degrading the national environment? You said it was too broad as worded and needs to be defined. Could that duty be defined in policy and procedures if the amendment passes?
Ms. Cunningham: Mine is likely the same response that Andrew just provided with regard to the other issue in that I think that would be narrowing through policy at that point in time.
Regarding the previous senator’s question with regard to the regulatory regime associated with park visitors, there is an expectation that park visitors will follow the regulatory regime of national parks. They are compelled to not destroy the environment when they’re visiting, and the Canada National Parks Act gives the superintendent the powers to impose compliance and enforcement authority around those duties. There is a duty to self. I think this is expanding to a duty to others. Every person takes the duty for a generalized responsibility that’s beyond their own self-responsibility. I think that’s really the question. It is far-reaching.
Mr. Campbell: Further to that, because I have the responsibility for the occupational health and safety of our employees, one of the things that could occur with this — and it is something that happens on a regular basis, just to get back to Senator Arnot’s question — is visitor to visitor conflict. Thus is leading people to say that they are going to enforce or stop you or take proactive measures to not do what you are in the process of doing, as opposed to today, which would be informing somebody else and having an official actually take that action. From that perspective, quite frankly, the most dangerous interactions we have for our employees are visitor to visitor, where the conflict grows and our people have to become involved.
Senator McCallum: On page 1, when you look at the 24(1) offence, it says “every person” who contravenes this. Who is that “every person” that is different from what is written there? They are guilty of an offence. It’s page 1, right at the bottom. It’s clause 3 that creates new subsection 24(1). So when you’re looking at what Senator Arnot is requesting, would that be offered under there, possibly, or is that “every person has a duty” too big?
Ms. Cunningham: Yes. My understanding of Senator Arnot’s proposal is that this is the person who contravenes. I think what you’re proposing is the duty to address other persons who could be contravening as well. I think that’s the expansion of that definition.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Did the Auditor General’s report say that Parks Canada was not doing its job in keeping the parks clean? Is that where your concern came from? I was going to raise it at committee, that there was a report that said that. Do you know of it?
Mr. Campbell: I’m not aware of the Auditor General’s report you’re referring to, no.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Senator Arnot: I don’t have any further questions of the witnesses.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed.
[Translation]
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
[English]
I guess the amendment is going in that place, Senator Arnot. We’ll be there later. We will stand it postponed. Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Clause 1.
Senator Arnot: It comes at the end? Okay. Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 2 carry? Page 1.
Senator Arnot: That’s my amendment. Correct?
The Deputy Chair: What we understood is you wanted to add that one right after the short title.
Senator D. Patterson: After clause 1. You have to move the amendment.
Senator Arnot: I hereby move my amendment, as previously circulated.
Senator D. Patterson: It should be read into the record, Madam Chair.
Senator Arnot: Okay. I move 1.1 —
The Deputy Chair: No, no. Clause 2, page 1. Because it says here that you want to add a 1.1 right after clause 1.
Senator Arnot: I think that amendment is consequential. If the first one goes through, then it —
The Deputy Chair: Okay. So we won’t postpone clause 1. Will you read your amendment, Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: I move:
That Bill S-14 be amended on page 1 by adding the following before line 6:
“1.1 The Canada National Parks Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 12(2):
(3) The Minister shall encourage public engagement in safeguarding Canada’s natural and cultural resources, including engagement by Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous organizations, representatives of park communities, members of the academic community and representatives of non-profit and non-governmental organizations.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), Indigenous governing body and Indigenous organization have the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act.”.
The Deputy Chair: Is it carried? Do you have a comment?
Senator Sorensen: I’m debating the motion.
I will speak against this amendment. While I completely understand the intent, I think the amendment would expand the ministry’s responsibility beyond that which is currently legislated. This amendment could potentially have an impact on natural and cultural resources outside the scope of the Canada National Parks Act, and the proposed subsection 12(3) creates a legal obligation on the minister that’s open-ended and, therefore, difficult to measure.
I want to concur with Mr. Campbell’s comments. The public and other groups already do report environmental emergencies and general concerns around the state of national parks. If it’s known to be polluted in a national park, the superintendent can enforce the powers. I think the intention of this bill is to get enforcement in there under the Canada National Parks Act so these concerns can be enforced. That is where we need Parks Canada to step in.
It’s very hard for me. I’m the sponsor of this bill, but I’m also a resident of a national park. I can assure you that we do round tables every two years where a number of these concerns are discussed. I’ve been at round tables where the minister themself is present. Management plans are long, drawn-out processes where things are checked and co-checked over and over again.
I also want to comment on the education that is given to visitors when they enter a park at the park gates or by the park’s employees around the park. Education is constant and consistent by employees in the national parks, in my experience, and I have visited many. So I do believe visitors are being engaged with. It happens on its own.
I will vote against this amendment. It was hard for me not to smile at Mr. Campbell’s comments about visitor-to-visitor conflict. When somebody is standing on the side of a road trying to take a picture of a mother bear and her cub, I can assure you that people jump out of their cars and tell them to get back into their cars.
Those are my comments as the sponsor and also as a resident of a national park.
Senator D. Patterson: On the amendment, I have the greatest of respect to Senator Arnot’s intent in bringing these amendments forward, but I must say I was persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Campbell that the Parks Canada Agency Act already requires the minister to hold a round table biannually. That, no doubt, would include engagement with Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous organizations, representatives of park communities, members of the academic community and representatives of non-profit and non-governmental organizations outlined in Senator Arnot’s amendment. As the witness told us, that’s already in place. Furthermore, the management plan for each park must be tabled to Parliament, and it includes a consultation table. In that respect, the amendment duplicates what is already required. I have some concern about words like “encouraging,” the minister shall encourage public engagement, and about how that would be measured, if not defined.
With the greatest of respect, I’m hesitant about supporting an amendment that the department says is not necessary and is already built into the Parks Canada Act. It’s unfortunate that these aspirational words were not proposed as an amendment to the preamble or an addition to the preamble of the Parks Canada Act. That’s where I think such aspirational words properly belong. As I say, I do respect Senator Arnot’s intention in putting into law the representations of witnesses, but I think it could cause some confusion and uncertainty, and, yes, even litigation, which I don’t think would be helpful. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Any other comments? Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Colleagues, I understand that the minister has two round tables and that’s really working well, but civil society told us they wanted more engagement and more avenues. They are not satisfied. It’s an enhanced engagement. That’s different than what’s happening. They had a problem with the way it is. They wanted it cured by ensuring that they were engaged in these categories, particularly the academics and the members of civil society, non-profit and non-government organizations. That’s a distinction I was making, Senator Patterson, and that’s why I put it forward. I do believe on some of the other amendments that we have discussed that policy and procedures are where this could be managed by the minister and the ministry, which was a great question that you asked.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments?
[Translation]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Senator Oh, are you against?
[English]
We will call the question. Just to remind honourable senators, this is the first amendment moved by Senator Arnot.
Senator McCallum: Could these words be put into an observation?
Senator Arnot: I suppose they could. I’ll be frank. It’s not in the preamble because the preamble, for the most part, is not worth the paper it’s written on. It has no effect. It’s possible, but I would rather it be in the legislation. I probably would not make a motion to put it in an observation.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The Deputy Chair: Are senators ready to vote on this?
[Translation]
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Verner?
Senator Verner: No.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: No.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: No.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Sorensen?
Senator Sorensen: No.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator White?
Senator White: No.
Ms. Aubé: Yeas, 3; nays, 5.
The Deputy Chair: Therefore, the amendment is defeated.
We’re on clause 2.
[English]
Senator Arnot, you have an amendment.
Senator Arnot: I won’t put that forward.
The Deputy Chair: No? Okay. Thank you.
Shall clause 3 carry, on page 1?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Yes?
Clause 2 with this amendment? So can we adopt clause 2?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Clause 3 is done.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. That’s fine. Now we are good.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Arnot, you had an amendment on page 2, clause 4?
Senator Arnot: I move:
That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 4, on page 2,
(a) by adding the following after line 4:
“31.5 Every person has a duty to take measures to prevent the discharge or deposit in a park of a substance capable of degrading the natural environment, injuring fauna, flora or cultural resources or endangering human health.”;
(b) by replacing line 23 with the following:
“section (2)(b), the superintendent shall order the person”;
(c) by replacing line 25 with the following:
“measures that they are ordered to take, the Minister shall”.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Arnot. Are there any questions on that?
Senator Sorensen: Senator Arnot, I was wondering if you would consider splitting this in terms of asking the question and the debate. “31.5 Every person has a duty” — and then splitting out section 3. Respectfully, I can support part of it. I can’t support all of it.
Senator Arnot: Okay. In this motion, then, there are three parts?
Senator Sorensen: Right. I have got so many pieces of paper over here.
Senator Arnot: So you don’t like (a), which would include 35.1, but you are okay with (2)(b) — “the superintendent shall”?
Senator Sorensen: Yes.
Senator Arnot: Okay.
Senator Sorensen: I’m just asking if you would consider splitting the votes out.
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Senator Sorensen: The chair will have to manage that.
Senator Arnot: I’ll amend this by taking out paragraph (a).
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Is there a subamendment? For the subamendment, are you are keeping (b) and (c) but not (a)?
Senator Arnot: Correct.
The Deputy Chair: Do we agree with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Okay.
Senator Arnot: It’s the only way I can get a positive response. I sense that.
Senator Sorensen: Can I speak to the amendment?
Again, I do agree with Mr. Campbell’s comments that I think this does happen, but having it in legislation is — it [Technical difficulties] the legislation.
The Deputy Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt this amendment, which is removing (a)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Shall the motion in amendment as amended carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Clause 4 is carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Shall clause 6 carry?
[English]
There is an amendment moved by Senator McCallum.
Senator Sorensen: I think this is me.
The Deputy Chair: We don’t have your amendment, Senator Sorensen.
Senator Sorensen: Just a second, everybody.
Senator D. Patterson: I am aware of Senator McCallum’s amendment, and with your permission, I would like to move her amendment —
Senator Sorensen: Senator Patterson, respectfully, we’re moving forward on the one on cabins.
Senator D. Patterson: Clause 6, page 3.
Senator Sorensen: Yes. This is not the way this was supposed to go down.
Can I just ask another question? I note that there was a law clerk amendment — I think it was before this in my notes. Something about some language. I thought the law clerk was going to make an amendment on page 2 — powers of superintendent and minister. It was housekeeping? There was a worry about subsection and paragraph. No? Okay. Sorry. Never mind.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Sorensen, we will circulate your amendment, and we will discuss it after the law clerk sees it.
Senator McCallum, you had an amendment on clause 6.
Senator McCallum: Am I doing the amendment?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, please. You can move the amendment.
Senator Sorensen: It’s basically the same amendment.
Senator McCallum: Okay. Let me do it, then.
I hereby move:
That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 6, on page 3,
(a) by replacing lines 25 and 26 with the following:
“tion of existing cabins, or may issue licences for the personal use or occupation of existing cabins on those lands, and may renew or”;
(b) by replacing lines 30 to 32 with the following:
“al Park Reserve of Canada for the personal use or occupation of existing tilts, or may issue licences for the personal use or occupation of existing tilts on”;
(c) by replacing lines 37 to 39 with the following:
“may authorize the personal use or occupation of existing cabins on public lands in the park reserve, or the personal use or occupation of existing tilts on those lands, and”.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator McCallum. Are there comments or questions about that?
Senator Sorensen: Senator McCallum and I had very similar amendments, and I know you have just received mine. Could our officials maybe comment on —
Senator McCallum: Can I tell you why I put them in?
Senator Sorensen: Oh, I’m sorry.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments or question?
Senator McCallum: Yes, and I will set the context for it.
The Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve is the homeland of two Indigenous peoples with section 35 rights: the Innu of Labrador represented by the Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit represented by the Nunatsiavut government. Nunatsiavut has concluded a modern treaty and self-government agreement, and the Innu Nation is within months of finalizing their own treaty.
The Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve was established in 2015, following the recommendations of a feasibility study and negotiations between Parks Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Innu Nation, pursuant to a memorandum of agreement for the Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak National Park Reserve between Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the land transfer agreement and the Innu Nation Park Impacts and Benefits Agreement.
The land transfer agreement, which established the park, recognizes two section 35 rights-holding groups in Labrador — Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut government — and includes extensive provisions in respect to Innu and Inuit rights and interests. It also provides for individuals who do not have section 35 rights but are long-term residents of the park reserve area to qualify as traditional land users and acquire permits to continue to carry out certain traditional activities. The land transfer agreement also permits existing cabins to continue but prohibits new cabins from being established.
Bill S-14 includes provisions related to Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak National Park Reserve that, if brought into effect, would expand the scope of activity allowed within the park reserve, including the establishment of new cabins and tilts. It would improperly recognize all members of the NunatuKavut community council as traditional land users with statutory rights to engage in a wide range of traditional activities within the national park reserve, and it would breach agreements with the Innu Nation.
This amendment is about upholding the 2015 land transfer agreement, and the current provisions of Bill S-14 that would extend and expand the class of traditional land users to all members of NCC, an unrecognized and controversial group that claims Indigenous status. It would expand the scope of traditional uses to enable the construction of new cabins and tilts by non-rights holders. The committee has heard concerns about impacts of these amendments on the ecological integrity of the park reserve and the impacts on the ability of the Innu Nation and the Nunatsiavut Government and their members to exercise their recognized section 35 rights in competition with non-rights holders.
The bill as proposed would depart from the balance achieved in the feasibility study, which recommended a limited scope of users and activities should be included within the definition of traditional use. This was to ensure that any impacts of those activities on the exercise of a section 35 right by Innu Nation and Nunatsiavut would be manageable and maintain the ecological integrity of the park reserve.
Expanding the scope of traditional uses and the number of traditional land users will undermine the ecological integrity of the national park reserve and is directly contrary to the central purpose of the act to maintain parks as unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The motion proposes to add “existing” to the references to cabins and tilts in section 14 so as to maintain the provisions of the land transfer agreement at sections 14.3 and 14.5, which only allow for existing cabins to be maintained or replaced by traditional land users.
Senator D. Patterson: I would like to speak in support of the proposed amendment.
As Senator McCallum has very clearly outlined, there is a recognition of existing land users who are members of the NunatuKavut Community Council recognized in this amendment in accordance with the 2015 agreement between the Innu Nation, the NunatuKavut and Canada. I understand this amendment addresses the concerns that were clearly expressed by the Innu Nation and the witness Peter Penashue and his legal counsel, Mr. Innes, at our last meeting that the bill as drafted could open up 6,000 NunatuKavut members to be entitled to cabins in the national park. That was a problem that was identified with the bill as it is currently written. This amendment to clause 6 on page 8 eliminates that concern and the recognition of NunatuKavut members as rights holders equal in standing to the Innu Nation.
We heard Mr. Russell assert that NunatuKavut members have rights, but their rights are still to be defined. Mr. Russell talked about a 2019 memorandum of understanding between the NunatuKavut Community Council and former Crown-Indigenous Relations minister Carolyn Bennett, which says that those rights are to be defined with the Crown. That has not yet happened. Mr. Russell was clear that they are at the beginning stages of defining their rights. When and if that happens, their rights may expand. Furthermore, Mr. Russell also made it clear that the expected discussions with existing neighbouring rights holders, the Innu Nation and Nunatsiavut Inuit, still have yet to happen.
It also recognizes that there are existing cabins and tilts owned and occupied by NunatuKavut, and those existing cabins or tilts are recognized in this amendment. It’s just that it won’t be open-ended, allowing 6,000 potential members to build cabins or tilts and, as Senator McCallum has said, significantly interfere with the ecological integrity of the park.
I think this amendment gives the NunatuKavut existing traditional users rights and recognition that they have asked for, but it does not recognize them as rights holders when those rights are still nascent and to be defined between the Crown and the NunatuKavut Community Council in talks going forward. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Sorensen: Senator McCallum, I certainly support your amendment in terms of getting the words “existing cabins” into the legislation. People have my very similar amendment in front of them now. I had also suggested a definition of “existing cabins” in mine. Maybe we can go through that.
I would like to turn to the officials and ask about the difference between my amendment and Senator McCallum’s amendment when it comes to the establishment and use of “tilt,” which is not something that I had in mind.
Senator McCallum: So you want to remove tilts?
Senator Sorensen: I just want to understand that aspect a bit more, and then I may ask you to — I’m not sure. Mr. Campbell or Ms. Cunningham?
Mr. Campbell: I’ll just start with the difference between a cabin and a tilt, unless everyone already knows that.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. That would be very helpful.
Mr. Campbell: A cabin, and why it might be good to define the cabin, is a structure that continues to be able to be occupied. A tilt is the colloquial term in Labrador for, essentially, a lean-to. They are often used for hunting and other purposes in the back country or at the end of snowmobiling and those sorts of things. It’s not as permanent a structure as a lean-to or made in that sort of way. In many ways, it would be difficult to say whether you are rebuilding because of winter wear on those types of lean-to structures or whether that tilt existed.
There are essentially four agreements that we have around this national park reserve. One, of course, is with the Nunatsiavut government. There is their title and then an agreement around that title that extends rights through the rest of the park. Then there is an interim agreement on the way to full recognition with the Innu Nation, and that establishes their rights within the park. Then you have an accommodation to a court decision, which is called the shared understanding agreement, with the NunatuKavut government. The final one is the land transfer agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In a number of those agreements, in order to make them whole, because the tilts are temporary structures, it would be difficult to say what existed and what did not. In at least one of the other agreements, and potentially more, in order to be able to allow people to carry out traditional activities, you would need to be able to accept that tilts could be rebuilt. As I said, they are temporary types of structures.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Again, for the benefit of the committee, Senator McCallum and I have had conversations around this. As I said, my amendment agrees with you on your first two points. I guess I am asking if you would either amend your own motion and take that last part out about the tilts, or if you would, as I asked Senator Arnot, split it out. If you want to vote on the tilt piece, would you split out the portion about existing cabins, which I will wholeheartedly support, and then ask a separate question on the establishment of tilts if you want to continue to have that in there?
I’ll also let the committee know, depending upon how these votes go, that I would add a definition after, as a different motion, for existing cabins, because I think it’s important to have a definition in there.
Senator McCallum, I’m not sure how you feel about that.
Senator McCallum: I do have —
The Deputy Chair: Senator McCallum, sorry. In any case, the Office of the Law Clerk has a concern about your amendment, so we would have to suspend the adoption of that clause if you maintain your — or Senator McCallum’s subamendment to the actual amendment we have. We would have to wait maybe until the end to adopt it.
Senator Sorensen: Just to be clear, my amendment is exactly the same as Senator McCallum’s except for the second portion of hers, which has to do with the establishment of tilts. I’ll just hand it back over to Senator McCallum and see what she has to say and keep mine out of it for now. I wanted to make that point to make sure Senator McCallum understood what I was trying to accomplish.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: First of all, do you know the number of tilts that are on the land right now?
Mr. Campbell: I don’t have that number in front of me, sorry.
Senator McCallum: And it’s 10 cabins right now?
Mr. Campbell: I think it’s 20 existing cabins.
Senator McCallum: Okay, I thought it was just 10.
When we do traditional activities, we carry tents. Those are our temporary shelters. For some people, that is their lifestyle and culture. It’s easier than building a cabin, which takes time.
When you say that we’re not going to have tilts, you’re going to be preventing people from having the tilts, because they can’t afford to build a cabin. So do you need to consult with the rights holders? Was this in their agreement?
Mr. Campbell: The tilts are not within their agreement, but they are a function of being able to do —
Senator McCallum: — to hunt.
Mr. Campbell: Exactly. To do their traditional activity. That is why we didn’t want the word “existing.” It’s hard to have that word.
Senator McCallum: So leave it but remove the word “existing.”
Mr. Campbell: Correct. Yes.
Senator McCallum: But how are you going to limit the numbers now?
Mr. Campbell: There are two ways. The first is through permitting. For individuals who don’t have Indigenous rights, there will still need to be an environmental assessment of those going in or an environmental permit. So there will be an assessment prior to them going in.
Senator McCallum: I would need to go through this with the lawyer, because I didn’t expect this. Because I’m working with the Innu Nation, I don’t know this. So this one, I cannot say I agree with it because it’s not my job to do that.
Senator D. Patterson: Madam Chair, I’d like to try and be of assistance here.
I believe that Mr. Campbell has said that the description of tilts as “existing tilts” is not quite correct because they are put up but they’re not permanent. It seems to me that they’re unlike cabins. Cabins are “existing;” they stay. But as Senator McCallum has said, the traditional practice may well be to go back to the same site and have a temporary tilt. Those are traditionally used. It seems to me that we could solve the concern expressed by Mr. Campbell by removing the adjective “existing” beside “tilts” in both the last two clauses in lines 30 to 32 in Senator McCallum’s amendment.
I would propose a subamendment to remove the word “existing” from in front of “tilts” in clause (a) of —
Senator McCallum: I would have to take that to the Innu Nation because of that. If they are going hunting and have to stay overnight, that’s what they build. You’re going to prevent them. Some will not be able to have a cabin. They’ve had this activity on the land all this time, and if you remove it, then what are they going to do? You’re limiting cultural activity.
Mr. Campbell: If I may respond, in fact, as worded with “tilts” without the amendment saying “existing,” if you just continue to say “tilts,” you are in fact ensuring those activities. That is why the government, with our advice, had put it forward in the bill: to be sure that the traditional activity was protected. That’s why the word “tilts” is in there.
When you put the word “existing” in front, it could bring into question what tilts they are. If they fall down during the winter and there is a rebuild and you are saying that only existing tilts are allowed, you might be limiting the traditional activity. So adding the word “existing” could limit the traditional activity. As it’s written right now, tilts are protected within the park for use as a traditional activity.
Senator McCallum: And how will the tilts be limited, then? You know that they’re not springing up all over the place with this.
Mr. Campbell: Under the superintendent’s authority with the co-management boards that exist within the park.
Ms. Cunningham: If I could add an environmental consideration, the way in which the superintendent would issue licenses is with that goal in mind. That is also in some of the agreements that we do have in relation to tilts. That consideration is already documented in those agreements, that conservation would be one of the shared goals.
In effect, the “existing” part is to grandfather cabins that already exist. Not having the word “existing” for tilts means that new tilts can be constructed to support traditional activities. That’s the intent. By adding “existing,” it’s implying there are already tilts on the landscape and that we’re only maintaining the grandfathering and not allowing the addition of new tilts to support traditional harvesting.
Senator Sorensen: Senator Patterson, I really appreciate your input. I understand that you were hoping to have a conversation. To me, it is logical thinking to put “existing” on tilts. They’re temporary structures. If one falls down or is taken away, that one is not coming back. I understand the logic and the difference between tilts and cabins.
I’ll just say that I think Senator Patterson was suggesting a subamendment to the amendment, and I would suggest maybe that amendment to your amendment comes forward and we vote on that, and then — I know you’re a little uncomfortable with it. I’m just testing the waters to see if you understand the logic that we’ve heard.
Senator McCallum: I understand it. With the cabins, they don’t last forever. When they are down, they can rebuild the cabins. Right? That’s in there.
Mr. Campbell: Yes, to support traditional activities, absolutely.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Senator D. Patterson: I think this has been very helpful. To Senator McCallum’s concern, we have on the record now the senior official from Parks Canada saying that the word “existing” in front of “tilts” would actually limit the traditional users that we do wish to recognize and protect in this legislation. Having heard that, and knowing that it’s on the record and knowing that judges do examine Senate committee transcripts to determine the intent of parliamentarians, I’d like to say that I believe Senator McCallum’s concerns have been addressed by the officials and that eliminating the adjective “existing” in any reference to tilts will actually not limit traditional users, as she was concerned about.
This is her amendment, but I do think it would be helpful to make a subamendment that would remove the word “existing” immediately in front of “tilts” in both sub (a) and sub (b) in Senator McCallum’s amendment, replacing lines 30 to 32. It would remove the words “existing” in front of “tilts” in sub (a) and sub (b), only in reference to tilts, not cabins.
Senator McCallum: I did receive a message, and what the Innu say is that to them, a tilt is a cabin, and we cannot define for them what a cabin is. That’s what the lawyer is saying. He’s with the Innu right now, and they’re listening. They see a tilt as a cabin.
The Deputy Chair: Do you want to move —
Senator McCallum: And they want the word “existing” in front. When you make a tilt or a cabin, it’s not a flimsy thing. It’s structured. When you go hunting, you need a place that is warm. You’re not in this lean-to that people think about. Really, to respect the Innu and their way of life, if they see this as a cabin and that’s what they’ve been building all these years, then who are we to say it’s inappropriate? If they’re going to replace tilts, because that’s where they go hunting and that is their area of hunting, they will replace it. So they’re okay. They want existing tilts to be done, and it won’t diminish their cultural activity.
Senator Sorensen: I was just going to ask Mr. Campbell to comment again on some of these newer comments that have been made and the information that Senator McCallum has given. I also just want to make note that regardless of what happens here, we do have third reading. If something happens where we need more clarity, it could potentially be fixed at third reading.
Senator McCallum: I said what the Innu said.
Senator Sorensen: Mr. Campbell, any further comments from you?
Mr. Campbell: I think this would depend on whether you are prepared to have the act include a definition of cabin or a definition of tilt. And if you look on the French side, because a tilt is so hard to define, when you read the French copy of the bill, in fact, what it says is — I’d better get it, in fact, correct. It literally says “shelters commonly” — yes.
The Deputy Chair: Clauses 5 and 6. Clauses 4 and 5. You can have — and 6 also.
Mr. Campbell: On 3.
The Deputy Chair: On page 3.
Mr. Campbell: Upon looking at the translation of it, in fact, what it is saying is that they are structures commonly known in Newfoundland and Labrador as tilts, because there is no French direct translation for the word “tilt.” In fact, it is put in there in that way so that there is no confusion about the fact that they are different from cabins. It may be helpful, though, at some point in the definition of that, to have the definition of cabin versus tilt within the act. That would be helpful in our being able to do exactly what Senator McCallum is asking for. That way, there is no confusion as to what a tilt is and what a cabin is.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I totally understand Senator McCallum’s intention and I fully share her position. The notions of “cabin” and “tilt,” or “cabane” and “abri,” in French, refer to permanent and temporary dwellings, respectively. According to the Laroussse, an “abri,” or “tilt,” is something temporary, whereas a “cabane,” or “cabin,” is more permanent. However, when I read the definition of the term “abri,” or “tilt,” in the act, it doesn’t mention these concepts of temporary or permanent shelter.
Wouldn’t it be better to specify that we recognize the right of Indigenous peoples to have permanent tilts or cabins? That way, if there is any breach, there would be a grandfathering provision. This concept appears in Quebec’s cottaging and resort legislation and regulations for hunters who have hunting cabins. I have one in Abitibi that was built almost 50 years ago. It was built 20 metres from the lake. The law was changed in 1988. Now, you can’t build a hunting cabin any closer than 200 metres. However, we can rely on that grandfathering provision today.
Couldn’t the legislation recognize grandfathering for Indigenous people, so they don’t have to ask for authorization to rebuild their cabins? They could rebuild in the same place, unless there were regulations on the protection of wildlife or the natural environment that would not allow rebuilding in the same place, just a few metres away. Maybe the best solution would be to recognize grandfathering for Indigenous people.
[English]
Senator D. Patterson: I think Senator Boisvenu has got it right. Following what Senator McCallum stated, I understand that a tilt — sometimes we call it a lean-to in my experience — may be less permanent than a cabin, but the location of a tilt is permanent. That’s where traditional users come every year, even though it’s not a structure like a cabin. In light of that and in light of the representations by the Innu nation, I will withdraw the proposed subamendment deleting the word “existing.” I think the superintendent can clearly sort this out based on his or her knowledge of the traditional users in the park. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: There is another amendment that would be complementary to Senator McCallum’s.
Has the Office of the Law Clerk addressed this?
May we proceed now, or shall the clause stand postponed?
[English]
Senator Sorensen: I’m not saying anything about my motion.
The Deputy Chair: That’s fine.
Senator D. Patterson: Question?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, question, please.
[Translation]
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
[English]
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Are we going to have a vote, because I would abstain.
The Deputy Chair: We can, if you want.
Senator D. Patterson: A roll call vote.
Senator Sorensen: Yes, please. Thank you. Gosh, we’re going to be lost without you.
The Deputy Chair: It is moved by Senator McCallum:
That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 6, on page 3,
(a) by replacing lines 25 and 26 with the following:
“tion of existing cabins, or may issue licences for the personal use or occupation of existing cabins on those lands, and may renew or”;
(b) by replacing lines 30 to 32 with the following:
“al Park Reserve of Canada for the personal use or occupation of existing tilts, or may issue licences for the personal use or occupation of existing tilts on”;
(c) by replacing lines 37 to 39 with the following:
“may authorize the personal use or occupation of existing cabins on public lands in the park reserve, or the personal use or occupation of existing tilts on those lands, and”.
[Translation]
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Verner?
Senator Verner: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Sorensen?
Senator Sorensen: I abstain.
Ms. Aubé: Yeas, 6; abstentions, 1.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: My question would be, again, for the officials. We’ve heard conversation around definitions and that definitions may be helpful. Is that something we should be trying to do at this point in the legislation, to find definitions, in your opinion, for this section, to understand it more fully?
Mr. Campbell: I think it would help in the determination of those things we have as statutory rights and those things that we have as treaty and other rights, because it does seem, from the testimony we’ve heard earlier, that there is a difference between those who are looking for statutory rights. Let’s be clear on this: These also apply to traditional users, who are those people who are defined, perhaps, as you move forward in the rest of the act but could include those that we would need to have included that were part of the land transfer agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, from that perspective, that way it would be clear to everybody, I think, in the legislation.
Senator Sorensen: On that note — and I think the clerk has it — I did initially have a definition for “cabin.” I certainly don’t have a definition for “tilt,” so I don’t know how we would accomplish that and if it’s something that can be accomplished today by the end of the meeting or not.
Senator McCallum: I can ask them to send it to me, if the Innu could send me a definition, because they’re listening, and they can work on this while I do my next amendment.
The Deputy Chair: No.
Senator McCallum: No?
The Deputy Chair: The law clerk has to see it. If we put a definition in both official languages, the law clerk’s office has to see it.
Senator McCallum: They’re going to text it to me before the end.
The Deputy Chair: Apparently it has to be available in both official languages. Sorry.
Senator McCallum: Even if you define it now?
Senator Sorensen: I don’t know what we do with process now. If it is just defining a cabin, I had that, and the clerk would still have to see it, as I understand.
The Deputy Chair: Yes.
Senator Sorensen: Even though we have it in front of us, the clerk would need to see it.
I’m being very empathetic to the deputy chair and the thought that we were trying to, maybe, get this done today, and I think we still could, but if we add another element, we may not. Is it something we look at at third reading or —
The Deputy Chair: Or in another meeting.
Senator D. Patterson: Madam Chair, I think it would be unfortunate if we postpone consideration of this bill today.
What we’ve heard is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Innu Nation know what tilts are. As the definition in French says, because there is no equivalent French word for “tilts,” it is “comment appeler « tilts » à Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador” or the common understanding or the common name for “tilts” in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would respectfully say that I don’t believe we need to define “tilts” if everybody knows what it is, and the superintendent knows full well what they are. I’d like to suggest that we continue with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Senator Sorensen: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: If I may add, on page 3, we have —
[Translation]
— clauses 4 and 5. There is some clarification, particularly in clause 5, that there are existing “tilts,” as they are commonly known, in Newfoundland. We can read nuances between “cabins” and “tilts” in these two clauses of the bill.
[English]
We can read nuances between “cabins” and “tilts” on page 3.
Senator D. Patterson: Agreed.
Senator McCallum: You’re saying that is enough definition? Yes, I agree.
The Deputy Chair: Do you agree with that? Did you find it on page 3?
Senator McCallum: I had read it before. I was looking for it, and I couldn’t find it.
The Deputy Chair: On page 3 at the bottom of the page, 41.4 and 41.6.
Senator McCallum: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Are you good with that?
Senator McCallum: I don’t understand what you’re asking me.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Sorensen asked for a definition of “cabins” and “tilts.”
Senator Sorensen: I agree with what Senator Patterson said. I think at this point it is more important to move forward and that there is some understanding.
Senator McCallum: If you want it defined, then do it in third reading. Can that be done, too? But it will still pass, this amendment?
Senator D. Patterson: Agreed.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The Deputy Chair: Senator McCallum, you had another amendment?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
I hereby move:
That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 6, on page 8, by deleting lines 5 to 8.
Is that on page 8?
When I spoke about setting the context with the rights holders, that remains the same. I don’t know if you want me to reread that part about the homeland of the two Indigenous people with section 35 rights, the Innu of Labrador represented by the Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit represented by the Nunatsiavut government, and that there was a land transfer agreement.
With this amendment, Bill S-14 wouldn’t properly recognize all members of the NunatuKavut Community Council and be seen as rights holders within the national park reserve. The 2015 land transfer agreement defines traditional land users as persons with direct connections to the national park reserve by virtue of birth, parentage and place of residence as follows:
traditional land user means
(c) an individual who was born in the designated area;
(d) an individual who was born to a biological parent who, at the time of the individual’s birth, was ordinarily resident in the designated area;
(e) an individual who was legally adopted by a parent who, at the time the adoption took effect, was ordinarily resident in the designated area;
(f) an individual who was or has been ordinarily resident in the designated area for at least 10 consecutive years; or
(g) a child, spouse or common-law partner of an individual described in any of paragraphs (a) to (f).
The 2015 land transfer MOU also included a fixed list of traditional activities and makes access by traditional land users subject to such terms, conditions, limits, seasons and measures as Parks Canada considers reasonable to ensure sustainable use and conservation.
The draft Bill S-14 would provide that traditional land users may be permitted to carry out specified traditional activities within the park reserve but dramatically expands the class of traditional land users as defined in the 2015 MOU to include all present and future members of the NunatuKavut Community Council.
Part (b) of the definition of traditional land user in Bill S-14 currently reads:
an individual who is a member of NunatuKavut Community Council Inc., a corporation without share capital incorporated under the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador;
The committee has heard from both NCC and Innu Nation on this proposal. It is clear that the NCC objective of recognizing all present and future members of the NCC as traditional land users within the park reserve without regard to their place of residence or connection to the park reserve is the intent that is reflected in (b).
The Deputy Chair: I would remind you, Senator McCallum, that we only have 15 minutes left to adopt the bill.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: It is clear that this would expand the number of traditional land users, and this would amount to 6,000 members that are being claimed. The Innu Nation are concerned that this was not the understanding of the parties to park establishment and that Bill S-14 is being improperly used by Parks Canada as a backdoor to provide effective recognition of NCC. This is despite the fact that Parks Canada confirmed to this committee that NCC does not have section 35 rights and is not a rights-holding entity.
Parks Canada doesn’t have authority to give section 35 rights to people, and neither do the senators through the Parks Act, and neither do the MPs. It should be done through the front door, through legislation like everyone else has gone through. It should go through the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Canada is breaching the incremental treaty agreement with Innu Nation. I’ll stop there.
The Deputy Chair: Okay. Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: Roll call for the vote, please.
The Deputy Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Verner?
Senator Verner: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Boisvenu?
Senator Boisvenu: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: I abstain.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Ms. Aubé: The Honourable Senator Sorensen?
Senator Sorensen: I abstain.
Ms. Aubé: Yeas, 5; abstentions, 2.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 17 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 18 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Clause 19. Senator Arnot, you want to move an amendment?
Senator Arnot: I move:
That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 19, on page 23,
(a) by replacing line 26 with the following:
“must order the person to take those measures. If the per-”;
(b) by replacing line 28 with the following:
“take, the Minister must take the measures on behalf of”.
Senator D. Patterson: So it is “must” instead of “may”?
Senator Arnot: Correct.
Senator D. Patterson: Agreed.
Senator Arnot: It’s in concurrence with the whole act. It’s just legislative drafting.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments? Okay, Senator Arnot’s amendment reads as follows:
[English]
That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 19, on page 23,
(a) by replacing line 26 with the following:
“must order the person to take those measures. If the per-”;
(b) by replacing line 28 with the following:
“take, the Minister must take the measures on behalf of”.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, shall clause 19, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 21 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 24 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 25 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Deputy Chair: No.
Is it agreed that I report this bill as amended to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)