THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 3, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:02 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Paul J. Massicotte. I’m a senator from Quebec and the chair of the committee.
Today, we’re conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
I would like to ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves, beginning on my right.
[English]
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, representing Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park, Treaty 7 territory.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator D. M. Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Robinson: Good morning. Mary Robinson, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study of Bill C-76: An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act. From the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, we’re joined by Kayli Avveduti, Executive Director. From the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation, we welcome Lauren Moberly, Member, Jasper National Park Indigenous Forum. From Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, we have Chris Rider, National Director, Conservation.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.
The floor is yours, Ms. Avveduti. You will be followed by Ms. Moberly and Mr. Rider.
[English]
Kayli Avveduti, Executive Director, Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations: Thank you.
Good morning, senators and members of the Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I am Kayli Avveduti, member of Alexander First Nation and Executive Director of the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations here in Alberta. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak with you and share our input on Bill C-76.
The Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations is a political advocacy organization that serves as the united political voice for those treaty nations that are signatories of Treaty No. 6. We advocate for the continued protection of the fundamental treaty, inherent and human rights of the treaty peoples of our member nations.
Jasper National Park was created within Treaty No. 6 without the involvement or consent of the treaty rights holders. The park was created within the territory covered by Treaty No. 6 but led to the forced removal of First Nations and has limited our ongoing access to our territory, traditional ceremonial sites and the harvesting of medicines and food sources. Since the creation of Jasper National Park, the First Nations of Treaty No. 6 have been trying to hold Parks Canada, as an agency of the Crown, accountable to the terms of the treaty and to be respectful of the inherent treaty rights affirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982.
In recent years, Parks Canada has begun to acknowledge the historical harms caused by the creation of the national park system and the ongoing harms being perpetuated by not fully respecting treaty rights. There have been opportunities for the confederacy and the First Nations of Treaty No. 6 to speak about these historical harms, provide input into reparations and forge a new and more equitable and respectful relationship with Parks Canada.
Jasper National Park has created the Jasper Indigenous Forum, and the confederacy and our member nations have been involved. This is an advisory committee through which Parks Canada seeks advice and guidance from the First Nations rights holders whose traditional territory overlaps with Jasper National Park. Elk Island National Park is looking to create a similar committee, and the confederacy has been offering advice on its creation and opportunities for improvements to this process to better respect treaty rights.
Since 2022, the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, through our Memorandum of Cooperation and Dialogue with the City of Edmonton, has been a partner with Parks Canada on the National Urban Parks initiative. Through this partnership, we have been working closely with Parks Canada staff and further educating the agency on the need to uphold their treaty obligations in their delegated authority on behalf of the Crown.
The role of the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations is not to educate others on their treaty responsibilities, especially not the Crown or its agencies. We advocate on behalf of the rights holders of Treaty No. 6 in Alberta and work to ensure treaty rights are upheld. The confederacy is dedicated to ensuring that the terms, spirit and intent of Treaty No. 6 are honoured and respected. Our message and expectations are always clear. The confederacy has been communicating this message in all our interactions with Parks Canada and the Government of Canada.
The Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations is not supportive of Bill C-76. Parks Canada and the Government of Canada, as representatives of the Crown, have not met their duty to consult with and accommodate rights holders with Treaty No. 6. This proposed legislation does not provide free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous peoples as outlined in the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or the Government of Canada’s own United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act of 2021. In delegating planning authority to the Municipality of Jasper, Parks Canada and the Government of Canada are further distancing themselves from their treaty obligations and any legal recourse that may be available to hold them accountable.
As our government partners, it is the expectation of the Treaty No. 6 chiefs that all our treaty partners are respectful of their responsibilities under Treaty No. 6. This includes being consulted and involved in all decisions that impact the lands of Treaty 6. Parks Canada and the Government of Canada have an opportunity with each action they take, decision they make and piece of legislation they introduce to live in the spirit and intent of the treaty relationship. Bill C-76 does not.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee this morning. I welcome any questions you might have.
The Chair: Ms. Moberly?
Lauren Moberly, Member, Jasper Indigenous Forum, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation: Hello and good morning.
My name is Lauren Moberly, and I am of the Aseniwuche Winewak people in Grande Cache, Alberta. I am also a director for the Grande Cache Historical Society; I am a member of the Jasper Indigenous Forum; and I own a business named Fallen Mountain, which operates on traditional Aseniwuche Winewak territory near Grande Cache, Alberta. It’s an honour to be here today.
In my capacity as director of the Grande Cache Historical Society, I specialize in the history of Indigenous peoples in the Grande Cache, Hinton and Jasper-Athabasca areas, with a particular emphasis on my family’s legacy within these regions. I collaborate with various local organizations, including the Jasper Yellowhead Museum and Archives, the Willmore Wilderness Foundation and the Mountain Métis. Through both my work and upbringing, I have come to understand the extensive documented history of my family within what is now known as Jasper National Park.
I have now been a member for two years of the Jasper Indigenous Forum, which has been active for two decades. Prior to the establishment of the forum, Jasper National Park officials engaged with multiple Indigenous groups, such as the Métis Association of Alberta during the 1990s, represented by my cousin Elder Lena Ouellette.
In 2004, Lena initiated the Council of Elders of the Descendants of Jasper Park. That is a group that continues to meet annually with Jasper Park officials, typically with one representative present.
Previously, each of the six Indigenous Cree and Métis families, displaced from the Jasper Forest Reserve when it was designated a national park in 1907, had a representative at these meetings. My parents, alongside other family members, were involved in both groups, as were their parents, who faced coercive removal from their birthplace within Jasper National Park.
These groups have been vital in elevating our community’s history and fostering lasting partnerships with Parks Canada, as the Aseniwuche Winewak people are not treaty not deemed to have treaty status.
The Jasper Indigenous Forum was established in 2005, building upon previous collaborations. This new forum permitted any Indigenous community to join without the necessity of documentation linking them directly to Jasper National Park, resulting in representation from 25 distinct Indigenous groups within a single Alberta national park.
Over its two decades of collaboration, the Jasper Indigenous Forum has completed two projects within the Town of Jasper: the Two Brothers Totem Pole, accompanied by informational panels, including one highlighting my family’s history with the ongoing development of the Jasper Indigenous Exhibit. This exhibit aims to provide a platform for each of the 25 nations within the forum to narrate their own experiences of removal, irrespective of the availability of historical documentation.
Additionally, the Jasper Indigenous Forum has coordinated traditional harvests within Jasper National Park, collaborating with select Parks partner communities such as the Stoney and Simpcw communities.
The Aseniwuche Winewak people have formally opposed these harvests, with letters from the President of the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation articulating the reasons against considering a traditional harvest. These letters were distributed to Jasper Park officials and representatives of the Jasper Indigenous Forum in 2007 before that hunt, and again in 2023 before that hunt.
Prior to each harvest, but despite these obligations, both the Stoney and Simpcw communities conducted hunts near my family’s historic homestead within Jasper National Park, resulting in the loss of five animals in 2023. Such actions are not only disrespectful to my community’s history but also detrimental. In 2023, a meeting with Jasper Park officials revealed that two bighorn rams were discovered beheaded within Jasper National Park as retaliation for permitting these harvests to take place.
It is important to note that such harvests do not align with traditional practices. For example, elk were first introduced into Jasper National Park in the 1920s by Parks Canada, following my family’s forced displacement.
Since its inception, the Jasper Indigenous Forum has complicated and delayed the resolution of Indigenous matters within the park. As a member, I have witnessed instances of physical and lateral violence at these meetings, as well as intimidation and inconsistencies in annual forum meetings.
Mark Young, with Parks Canada, has indicated that the yearly budget is insufficient to cover the costs associated with many groups, primarily due to travel reimbursements for representatives from across Alberta and British Columbia.
There has been a noticeable lack of consistent representation, and communication with park officials have proven challenging, particularly regarding proposed cultural sites and the renaming of significant cultural places.
Furthermore, the unmaintained and closed back country equine trails hinder local communities and organizations from preserving the mountain trails within the park, some of which were made and cleared by my own family.
I believe that this bill, if enacted, would facilitate stronger connections between local Indigenous communities such as the Aseniwuche Winewak and the municipal district. The courage to express one’s voice can often be impeded by the multitude of groups asserting historical ties to the Jasper National Park area in a forum setting.
Therefore, I advocate for the implementation of a registration process that would incorporate factual historical documentation, which would help create clarity regarding the Indigenous communities connected to the Jasper Valley.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chris Rider, National Director, Conservation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: Good morning, chair and distinguished members of the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Thank you for the warm welcome I received this morning.
I serve as National Director for Conservation at the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, or CPAWS. I’m grateful for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of my colleagues in our Alberta chapter as we work toward a full recovery of the Jasper community and Jasper National Park.
Jasper National Park is deeply important to many. Its iconic mountain landscapes hold a special place in the hearts of Albertans, Canadians, visitors and the Indigenous people whose traditional territory it has been since time immemorial.
For that reason, I would like to thank you for the testimony of the Aseniwuche Winewak First Nation and the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations for speaking today. I want to uphold their voices in any way I can.
Personally, I include myself amongst the many people who love Jasper, having spent time enjoying the beauty and the community there. Of course, my experience pales when compared to many people, and that does include the staff, board and supporters of CPAWS in northern Alberta who all have deep connections to the park. In fact, the northern Alberta chapter of CPAWS was formed in 1968 by people who sought to protect the natural values of Jasper in the face of mounting threats to its ecological values.
Honestly, we are still in shock about how quickly the situation escalated in Jasper and devastated for everyone who was impacted by that fire. We’re grateful that the townsite and back country were evacuated safely. We are also heartbroken for the loss of one of the firefighters who was working so hard to protect the community. The impact of this fire will be felt for many decades to come.
At the same time, at CPAWS, we want to ensure that the restoration of the park is done in a way that expedites the recovery of the community, the natural environment and the rights of the First Nations people who continue to call it home.
The lands and waters of Jasper National Park are an essential part of Alberta’s — and Canada’s — protected areas network safeguarding habitat for wildlife both large and small. The natural environment of the park is why millions of visitors flock there annually.
I wish to state we absolutely agree that, to help the community recover, an exemption to the barriers — as suggested by Senator Sorensen — should be granted. This is important for the town to rebuild quickly. At the same time, we remain concerned that changes to the legislation governing development within Jasper National Park must consider the impact on the environment and the rights of Indigenous people.
The Parks Canada Act mandates that the priority in park management is to maintain or restore ecological integrity, emphasizing its importance in preserving the natural heritage.
Ecological integrity is crucial for Canada’s national parks system, because it ensures the preservation and resilience of the cultural and ecological values of those landscapes.
We support the ability of the Town of Jasper to issue permits and expedite the recovery from this summer’s wildfire. But as the act is amended to support this goal, we would like assurances that the other goal of the act, to protect the ecological integrity of the park, is still in place. This includes a cap on commercial development and the town footprint limits.
Additionally, we want to ensure that the municipal bylaw applicable to planning and development be consistent and in line with the Jasper National Park of Canada Management Plan, and that there are processes in place to resolve conflicts of differences between the town planning and development and the park management plan. It should be done through proper consultative processes and given the time that requires with First Nations people.
CPAWS Southern Alberta has seen these concerns realized in Banff, where area redevelopment plans have been inconsistent with the park management plan, and that has threatened the ecological integrity of the park.
In closing, we stand with the people of Jasper and support them having the tools they need to regenerate the community. When this work is done, Jasper will look different, but we know that the community will come back stronger and continue to exist as a place with a passionate, kind and knowledgeable community that cares deeply for the nature that resides within its boundaries.
As this process moves forward in the coming months, we hope that our concerns can be addressed so the park and the people who live there can recover for the sake of the community and the nature it safeguards.
Thank you.
The Chair: If you allow me, I would like to start with a question to Ms. Avveduti. You made a stipulation that the Aboriginal community was not adequately consulted and therefore the obligations of Parks Canada were basically not satisfied. Have you raised this issue directly with Parks Canada or officials there to let them know there is a community that is disappointed with the process? If so, how did they respond?
Ms. Avveduti: Thank you for the question. As I said in my remarks, we have an ongoing relationship with Parks Canada through the National Urban Parks initiative. Some initial flags were raised through that, but we did not share it through official channels specifically on this legislation.
In truth, as you can imagine, we have a number of files that we cover here at the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, and the invitation to participate in any dialogue on this was first initiated just two evenings ago by this committee, so we have not had official dialogue with Parks Canada on the legislation.
The Chair: In your interpretation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on what level and at what time should you be consulted? What’s the process?
Ms. Avveduti: Our position is that with any legislation that is meant to impact on the nations, we should be consulted or informed immediately. So upon drafting and introduction of the legislation, we would have expected notice or opportunity for consultation from Parks Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I have one quick question for Ms. Moberly. Can you tell me what Indigenous members are participating in the Jasper Indigenous Forum?
Ms. Moberly: Currently, there are 25 different members. I would have to get my list, but many of them are the Aseniwuche Winewak people, Mountain Métis — I know Treaty 7, Treaty 8 and Treaty 6 send representatives from their respective communities that have ties to Jasper National Park.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much. I’m glad to hear that’s going as well as it is in Jasper National Park.
Senator D. M. Wells: I have a question for Ms. Avveduti along the same lines as the one our committee chair asked. I know they haven’t done it in the drafting or presentation of the bill, but is it mandated somewhere in the process of the execution, should this bill pass, that Treaty 6 First Nations must be included in some sort of consultative process?
Ms. Avveduti: Not to my knowledge. I don’t believe that it is mandated.
Senator D. M. Wells: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations and welcome to the Senate. I wanted to go back to the historical ties in the area. First Nations have been on the land before contact, in other words, since time immemorial. The Métis came post‑contact, so there are different levels of history. There are different levels of having been on the land. But we have to remember that we are related. The matriarch of all Métis in Canada — every single Métis — is a First Nations woman. So rights are different. We also have the issue of identity theft and fraud occurring in our lives.
I realize that all across Canada there is that struggle between the Métis and First Nations, what the rights are and who owns what. Who are the rights holders for the different areas in Canada? It is very sad that we still have that to contend with.
For the two ladies, I would like to ask if there is anything that you would like added to the bill, or is there any way we can somehow move forward with this issue before us? It is so continually frustrating when proper consultation isn’t done. I left the other day thinking it has been done, and every time it hasn’t. Is there any way that you can see that we could make progress here?
Ms. Avveduti: Thank you, Senator McCallum, for the question. Our position at the confederacy has always been and will always remain that any legislation needs the duty to consult met, and it was not met in this instance. I believe the path forward in our eyes is an opportunity for consultation with our 16 member nations in the Confederacy of Treaty Six to have better understanding of the impacts and implications of the legislation. We have not had the opportunity to do that with our nations, and we certainly have not had the opportunity to have those conversations with Parks Canada officials or the Government of Canada. So our path forward is having the duty to consult met properly.
The Chair: Ms. Moberly.
Ms. Moberly: I agree with that. The duty to consult, that is of the utmost importance in our community. Just understanding legislation rules and understanding what exactly is happening on our traditional territories and areas. Working with the Jasper Indigenous Forum, the municipal district of Jasper actually attended the last forum meeting that was held at the Palisades Centre in Jasper National Park. From that, I believe just more communication and a better connection within the town of Jasper and near Jasper as well as the Indigenous communities surrounding it, including the Aseniwuche Winewak.
Senator McCallum: Because of this dire situation in Jasper, is it possible to now have the ability to be consulted even if the bill passes, so that the opportunity is there and people can move forward? Would that be sufficient for you?
Ms. Avveduti: Thank you for the question. I think the challenge remains that if the legislation passes and the duty to consult happens afterward, what is the opportunity to impact changes on the legislation should there be any flags that are raised? My understanding of the legislative process would be very limited in challenging and making any challenges post‑passing of the legislation.
So we remain not optimistic that approach would benefit our nations, give them adequate opportunity to have an understanding of potential impacts or raise concerns about potential impacts of the legislation if it moves forward and duty to consult happens afterward.
The Chair: I wouldn’t mind asking a question to Senator Sorensen. My understanding of the bill, which was explained to me in some private sessions, is that the bill gets approved but the process relative to what authority we give to whom is totally to be decided. We don’t even know who is going to get what authority, and all this is to come. Is that the case? If that’s the case, is that not a way to include these people to ensure they get heard?
Senator Sorensen: I would suggest the answer is yes, definitely. What is going to happen with the passing of this bill, maybe for the benefit of the witnesses, because there is so much work to be done to make sure that the policies are worded with appropriate consultation — and apparently more is needed — the first thing that has to happen is that Jasper must create a community plan, which Banff has. Overriding this legislation, what will be their land use and planning bylaw is the Incorporation Agreement, the Jasper National Park Management Plan and they will have a community plan, and all of those documents need to be included in creating the legislation for Jasper to give them full authority.
So they can get going immediately, initially there are exemptions from the barriers that are currently in the act. That will allow them to get going. The Town of Jasper has hired a planner for the municipality for the first time ever, which is great; they’re starting to take steps forward. I can assure everyone in this room and our witnesses that there is much more conversation that will take place between the Town of Jasper and Parks Canada, and with consultation with Indigenous people as they get the final documents signed off.
This is an unusual situation, but what we’re approving is an exemption to the barriers so that the appropriate paperwork can be done in a timely fashion.
The Chair: Allow me to add also, as you know, we plan to go clause by clause on the bill; as a consequence, we’ve invited people from the ministry to join us and answer any questions we have. If you allow me, when they attend, we’ll ask them this question to see if it’s too late, what they have done and why they haven’t adopted a process that is more complete.
Senator Anderson: My question is for Ms. Avveduti and Ms. Moberly. You spoke about the duty to consult. Can you define in your words what you mean by “duty to consult”?
I want to give you some background. Quite often what we hear in committee is that the federal government has followed through with the duty to consult, but they have not defined what that looks like, and during the last testimony a few days ago, they spoke about engagement, and then the language switched to “contact.”
To me, there’s a big difference between “contact,” “engagement” and “duty to consult.” Can you please provide us your definition of “duty to consult”?
Ms. Avveduti: Thank you for the question. We, as treaty rights holders — and I know this position is a little bit different from Ms. Moberly’s — we believe that duty to consult requires the federal government, as representatives of the Crown and the treaty partnership, to meet and consult directly with treaty rights holders, which means directly with communities. I want to be very clear. The Confederacy of Treaty Six is not a treaty rights holder. We are an organization with members who are treaty rights holders. So duty to consult requires the Government of Canada to engage and consult directly with treaty rights holders and directly with the nations, not representative organizations. That was not met in this process, so that is our definition of “duty to consult”: consulting directly with the treaty rights holders and giving them an opportunity to understand the impacts and provide their own input and recourse for potential impacts on legislation.
Ms. Moberly: Duty to consult, within the Aseniwuche Winewak, since we are not treaty, has always been to consult with the direct descendants of those who were forcibly removed from Jasper National Park in 1907. Six families were removed. Since then, each of these groups that have worked with outside organizations — our definition is to meet with the descendants because they are still living and a part of these groups and they consist of these groups, such as the Upper Athabasca Elders Council, which is very much still meeting with Jasper National Park officials annually to discuss certain things within Jasper National Park, such as cultural and heritage sites. It is a duty to consult with the descendants of the first removed.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This brings to an end the panel discussion on our side. Thank you very much to all three of you for your contribution. I think you made a very significant contribution, and we certainly heard you and will see what we can do. Thank you very much for joining us. Sorry, Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Ms. Avveduti, as you’re probably aware, the consequences of not passing this legislation would be very dire for the people of Jasper, Jasper National Park and many of the stakeholders, because time is of the essence. I agree that the members of the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations should be consulted. Would you be satisfied if the Senate in this committee made a recommendation that, going forward, each one of the members of the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations should be consulted in a meaningful way in order to address the treaty rights of the First Nations that you represent?
Would that be satisfactory to you? I’m building on what Senator McCallum asked, and I agree with the sentiments behind Senator McCallum’s question. I believe if we made a recommendation by way of an observation, the concerns that you raised would be dealt with appropriately.
Ms. Avveduti: I think there are a few pieces to your question that I’d like to respond to. First, we absolutely recognize the dire circumstances which Jasper and the people of Jasper are in, and we have held them in our prayers and continue to do so. Recognizing all of that, we are understanding.
The risk is the slippery slope, and it begs the reason and the rationale behind doing this right the first time. If we had been consulted in a part of the consultation properly, even quickly, we wouldn’t be in this position of feeling left out of the process. First and foremost, getting it right the first time makes a big difference, but I do think that we welcome the Senate committee’s offer to put in the observation and the demand — I hope, if we can use stronger language — to ensure that the consultation and engagement take place with the nations.
I want to be very clear for the record that the Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations represents 16 nations in the Treaty 6 area, but there are more than that in the Treaty 6 area here in Alberta who access the site. So I want to be clear that when those recommendations go forward, they include all of the treaty rights holders in the territory who consider Jasper National Park part of their traditional territory, which is more than just the 16 that the confederacy represents. Thank you for your question.
Senator McCallum: The people bring up the dire situation of the national park and what has happened, and we must remember that First Nations were displaced and have been in a dire situation for hundreds of years. Continuously, they’re not consulted and at what point do we say this is enough? We need to acknowledge that they are put in such positions continuously, that they have to back off because it’s so urgent and then the same thing happens again. I wanted that put on record. Thank you.
Senator Robinson: I wanted to mention that when we had the minister, Mr. Guilbeault, and some staff, Mr. Andrew Campbell, attend a few days ago, I asked them a question regarding whether they felt the duty to consult had been fulfilled. In essence, the response of the minister was that — well, Andrew Campbell mentioned that only 1 or 2 of the 24 groups that they had identified would say that they weren’t consulted.
He was also quick to say he didn’t want to speak for First Nations, but the minister’s office was very clear in saying the duty to consult was met. This committee recently dealt with Bill C-49, in which we heard from some Mi’kmaq nations in Nova Scotia that they had not been consulted. I wanted to raise that point for the record.
If there are any comments from the witnesses, I’d be happy to hear them.
Ms. Avveduti: Thank you for the comments. We echo the sentiments and the experience of the Mi’kmaq with Bill C-49. We do not believe the duty to consult was met. In fact, we met with our 16 member nation chiefs yesterday to raise this issue and receive permission to appear in front of this Senate committee, and they all echoed the same sentiment: They were not aware of any of the efforts here on this legislation, and they did not feel the duty to be consulted was met for their individual nations either.
The Chair: Ms. Moberly, did you want to add something?
Ms. Moberly: Yes. Our community feels the same way. Even though we have consulted with Jasper National Park within the Jasper Indigenous Forum, our community has been uninformed about this new bill that is passing. That is why I am authorized to be here today: so my community can learn more from me.
To reiterate, when we meet within the Jasper Indigenous Forum, that is Parks Canada’s duty to consult. That is the consulting room in the area, but with many different nations claiming ties, it makes things fraught and it makes it challenging to have your voice heard in that setting.
Senator Robinson: I wanted to make the point that the minister and his staff alluded to us that 6 nations of the 24 responded because only 6 of them found this land sacred. I just wanted to note that.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being with us today, and I think you certainly created a good debate. We’re pleased to see that you’re doing your job and adding to the process. Thank you very much for being with us today and being alert to these issues.
That’s the end of our panel. As I mentioned earlier, we’ve asked the people from Parks Canada to join us this morning. If I could ask them to join us at this point, that would be appreciated.
[Translation]
We invited people from Parks Canada to join us to answer questions and help us proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration.
[English]
We all have an obvious question. There are some people with treaty rights who feel they were not properly consulted, and they constantly stipulate that we did not satisfy the obligations under the treaty.
Could you comment on that? Do you share that opinion? And if you do, could you give us more details of why you believe you satisfied our treaty obligations of consultation, if you could?
Jewel Cunningham, Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Planning, Parks Canada: Thank you for the question. I certainly don’t want to speak for the perspectives of our Indigenous partners with regard to duty to consult, but I will say a few things. We did talk about consultation associated with the changes that we were proposing to make with the authorities around land use planning for Jasper. Consultation began in 2022, and we did publish a what-we-heard report.
As part of that, the last time we appeared, my colleague mentioned that we had sent letters to 24 Indigenous partners and representatives associated with Jasper. We heard back from six and personally met with four groups, and much of the feedback was as was represented previously by my colleague.
Certainly, members expressed specific interest in areas of the park which they could utilize for ceremonial purposes and other types of interests associated with traditional use. However, the specifics around the permit, the authorities and those sorts of things warrant a key area of interest identified by those whom we spoke to.
The Chair: You mentioned you sent a letter to 24 or 26 people.
Ms. Cunningham: Yes, 24.
The Chair: Why 24? Does that include all treaty rights holders in the area?
Ms. Cunningham: It does. That’s our normal practice with regard to consultation. They are all the members that have indicated interest in Jasper.
The Chair: With the 24, does the letter say “please call me back” or “please confirm you received a copy of this letter, and therefore, we need to follow up”? Or is it a dead-end letter where if they don’t respond, they’re forgotten?
Ms. Cunningham: No, it’s an invitation for consultation. Many First Nations will indicate the ways in which they wish for us to consult. Some will request that we come to their community, others will request we meet personally and others respond in letters as well. It’s an invitation for consultation.
The Chair: If they do not respond, do you follow up to ensure they got the letter and they consider joining you?
Ms. Cunningham: I can’t confirm that at this point, but we did commit to the committee that we would provide the list of the 24 members and the correspondence that was sent.
The Chair: Is that available to us?
Ms. Cunningham: Yes.
Senator McCallum: Why wasn’t there direct communication for a legal duty to consult? Why was a letter sent? Because you don’t know who gets the letter, and it’s so important. Why wasn’t direct communication done instead of a letter?
Ms. Cunningham: Thank you for the question. I can’t confirm exactly whether we had specific outreach as a follow-up to the letter, but this is often the way we initiate consultation. It’s not the only form of consultation, the commencement with correspondence to contacts and then the invitation to engage in the ways in which they so choose and are resourced to participate. I can’t confirm whether we followed up differently.
Senator McCallum: It’s mind-boggling to me that only letters were sent. Maybe there should be a recommendation that there be more direct contact, because we had this problem with one of the parks when the chief came to me. She said, “No, Parks Canada didn’t contact us.” It’s happening over and over again.
I feel terrible, and it puts us in a bad spot that we have to deal with this emergency, overriding the rights of others.
Senator Sorensen: It is interesting with the letters being sent, because if a letter is sent, it may not be known where it went. But I was told at some point that with respect to Parks Canada, both Treaty 6 and Treaty 8 organizations have directed Parks Canada to consult directly with the member nations, since they don’t want to at the highest level of that organization. To confirm that, the letters were sent to the direct member nations, not necessarily the organization, based on their direction, insofar as they want you to send correspondence to the nations, and that the nations — well I don’t know how many of the nations of Treaty 6 you were saying were sent. Is that an accurate comment?
Ms. Cunningham: It is an accurate comment. It’s correct.
Senator Sorensen: For those of us who are non-Indigenous, it can be confusing. I understand the concepts of an organization, a nation and a band, and there’s a lot of room for letters to be misdirected. I wanted to get clarity on that because Treaty 6 is part of the Jasper Forum, correct? That’s one of our witnesses said.
Ms. Cunningham: They are the representatives of 16 member nations.
Senator Robinson: We heard on Bill C-49 from Chief Sidney Peters in Nova Scotia, a Mi’kmaq chief, that they receive a lot of mail. He said, “We have letters sent to us with a duty to consult on the placement of a culvert.”
If Canada had received a letter from the U.S. — another nation — requesting their response on a vital issue, would you consider that to be an effective means of communication from a foreign nation: the U.S. communicating to Canada, “We want to hear from you on this,” and if they didn’t hear from Canada, they would just move forward with what they wanted to do? My second question is as follows: How do you feel at this point we can move forward? As Senator McCallum said, we’re consistently being put in a very difficult position for legislation that many of us want to support. We have to do that, and in doing it, we have to consent to this lack of duty to consult. How do we move forward with this?
Ms. Cunningham: Thank you for that question. I think it was raised earlier with regard to the barriers for the shifting of land use planning authority from Parks Canada to Jasper. There are currently two barriers that prevent us from doing that: The first one is legislation; the second is the local government agreement, which is signed between the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is responsible for Parks Canada, and the municipality itself. There are additional steps before the transfer is actually completed. This is one part of that.
The legislation, in and of itself, as well, doesn’t abrogate our duty to consult. Section 2.2 of the Canada National Parks Act still requires us to confirm duty to consult on impacts to Indigenous partners in many of the activities that we do in our park lands, including this legislation. There are many other opportunities for continued dialogue, consultation and to meet our obligations with regard to duty to consult.
Associated with the local government agreement, in order to make the amendment to enable the Town of Jasper to undertake land use planning, we also need to see a community plan and bylaws, both of which must conform to Parks Canada’s mandate, responsibilities and environmental obligations. We will also review and approve those. That is another important step where we can certainly address some of the issues that have been raised by partners here and ensure that we meet that duty to consult.
Senator Robinson: I don’t know if you answered my first question. Would you consider it to be an effective means of communication if the U.S. had sent us a letter, we didn’t respond and they moved ahead with something for which we wanted to have input? Would you think Canada would consider that a reasonable means of communication?
Ms. Cunningham: I certainly acknowledge we can do better. We can do better with regard to engagement of First Nations communities, Métis and traditional rights holders. We do the best we can. Often, we start with the letter, and that is a practice implemented by Parks Canada and other departments as well, but we can certainly do better in terms of our outreach. I agree with that.
The Chair: Ms. Cunningham, we want to make you feel so bad that you didn’t fully do the job, so that you’ll never forget us again for the rest of your life.
Senator Arnot: I want to advise the chair that I’m going to propose at the correct time an observation, which will — I hope — address all the concerns of the Indigenous witnesses we heard this morning.
Senator Anderson: I want to make a few comments as well. You said that you wrote letters to 24, you heard from 6 and you met with 4. That’s a sixth of the group that you have a responsibility to consult with. In all legislation pertaining to Indigenous people, we’ve heard that the duty to consult has not been met, and you said that quite often the first initiative you implement is a letter. That’s clearly hugely problematic. If we’re hearing with regard to every bill, from every representative which includes Indigenous peoples that they have not been consulted, then there should be a recognition that a letter is not sufficient as your responsibility as a government for duty to consult. Then you say that you acknowledge that you can do better, but are you going to do better? If you acknowledge that you can do better, is that a message that will be sent across all departments to ensure that when we’re dealing with future legislation, we’re not having people saying that they have not been consulted and not hearing from representatives — “Oh, we sent a letter, but we’re not hearing from them.”
This is not the first committee where we’ve heard that you sent letters and didn’t hear back. It’s quite a common refrain, and the expectation that because you sent a letter, you’ve fulfilled your responsibility is actually appalling — to say that when you have a treaty responsibility to Indigenous people, it’s being met by sending a letter, and that even if they don’t respond to you, you’ve met your responsibility. I want to put that on the record. Thank you.
The Chair: On that note, Ms. Cunningham, are you aware that according to the formatting of the letter, at the very end, it says, “Please confirm; please respond to us.” How strong is that? I guess we want it to be strong enough that if 20 people didn’t respond, perhaps there’s something wrong with the letter. What’s the formatting of the letter? What follow-up was expected?
Ms. Cunningham: I am sorry, but I don’t have the letter with me, and I have not looked at it. I’ll have to come back.
The Chair: I think that brings to an end to the matter if there are no other questions. Thank you very much. We’re going to proceed with the clause by clause.
[Translation]
Before we begin, I would like to remind the senators of certain points. If at any point you aren’t clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I’ll ensure that at all times you all know where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, I want to remind the senators that, when we move more than one amendment for a single clause, the amendments must be moved in the order of the lines of the text to be amended. Consequently, before we consider an amendment or a clause, I’ll verify whether other senators intend to move an amendment to a previous line in the same clause. If so, they’ll have the opportunity to do so.
I’ll make a small clarification. If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process in committee is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause, but rather to vote against the clause when we come to the vote.
On that note, I’ll refer to Beauchesne citation 698 (6), which states as follows:
An amendment to delete a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill.
I would also like to remind the senators that some amendments that have been moved may affect other parts of the bill. I’ll refer the senators to Beauchesne citation 698 (2), pursuant to which the chair may deem an amendment to be out of order:
…if it is contrary to or inconsistent with provisions of the bill that the committee has already agreed to, if it is inconsistent with a decision that the committee has made regarding a former amendment…
In the spirit of this statement, it would be useful if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an impact. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision-making.
Staff will endeavour to keep track of these places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them. When no notice is required to move amendments, obviously there may have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. The chair will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
Of course, the committee is the master of its own business within the bounds established by the Senate. A senator may appeal a chair’s decision in committee by asking whether the decision should stand.
The third reading is the final stage in the study of the bill as a whole. Amendments to clauses can also be proposed at the third reading stage. As chair, I’ll do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have the opportunity to do so. However, I’ll depend upon your cooperation. I ask you all to keep your remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
Finally, I wish to remind the senators that, if there’s ever any uncertainty regarding the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a recorded division. This provides unambiguous results. The senators know that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Do you have any questions about what I just said? If not, we’ll start with the clause-by-clause consideration.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry? In fact, there aren’t any amendments.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to append observations to the report?
[English]
Senator Arnot: Colleagues, I’m going to put forward this suggested observation for your consideration, and it would be the following wording:
The committee recognizes the valid and deep-seated frustrations and concerns raised by the Indigenous witnesses who appeared before the committee. Therefore, with respect to the implementation of this bill, we demand that the Government of Canada comply with the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples; comply with the fiduciary duty to Indigenous peoples; meet the high standard of the honour of the Crown; and comply with section 35 of the Constitution, which recognizes the treaty rights and the Indigenous rights of the Indigenous people.
What I’m doing there is hoping to use every possible wording to get the result that should have occurred.
The Chair: Any comments? We’ll deal with this amendment, if you don’t mind. Senator Wells, you probably have an amendment, but can we deal with this one? It is separate from yours.
Senator D. M. Wells: I would like to deal with this observation.
Senator Arnot, thank you. We are all on the same page. This is for our discussion, because I don’t know if we can use the word “demand” in an observation. Observations cannot compel. And “demand” is obviously —
Senator Arnot: I can change the word to “expect.”
Senator D. M. Wells: As you wish.
Senator Arnot: If that resolved your concern.
Senator D. M. Wells: I would seek the advice of the clerk and analyst on that, but “expect” is good with me. However, I know we cannot make demands in an observation.
The Chair: Let’s deal with this. Is that okay?
Ferda Simpson, Clerk of the Committee: It will be the decision of the committee.
The Chair: It is obviously the decision of the committee, but the advice we are getting is it sounds acceptable.
Senator D. M. Wells: What sounds acceptable?
The Chair: The amendment, as amended. It seemed to be acceptable.
Senator D. M. Wells: To use the word “demand”?
The Chair: No, not “demand,” to “expect.”
Senator D. M. Wells: “Expect,” okay. That is good.
The other part was that, Senator Arnot, you mentioned fiduciary duty. Isn’t there something stronger? Isn’t there a legal duty?
Senator Arnot: That is the fiduciary duty: the legal duty. The Government of Canada, the Crown at all times must comply with the duty not to injure or to ensure there are no sharp dealings by the Crown. That is the duty.
Senator D. M. Wells: That’s the legal duty.
Senator Arnot: Yes, it is.
Senator D. M. Wells: You had said, “fiduciary duty.” Would it be acceptable to change it to “legal duty”? That seems stronger than “fiduciary.”
Senator Arnot: The fiduciary duty is recognized in constitutional law on these issues. That is why I use the word. There is a fiduciary duty. It has been litigated many times. It is in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings. They talk about the fiduciary duty in many cases, which is a very high obligation. It is a trust obligation.
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes, I understand. Okay, I’m fine with that.
Senator McCallum: I had an observation as well.
The Chair: Would you like to read it?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
The committee strongly calls on the Government of Canada to improve their approach as they undertake their fiduciary duty to consult with First Nations, Inuit and Métis rights holders on legislation that impacts their treaty rights and traditional lands. The committee urges the Government of Canada to adequately fulfill their duty to consult within all stages of the legislative process from conceptualization, to drafting, to implementation.
The Chair: Obviously, we can’t have both clauses.
Senator Arnot, any comments? Some of your words are in there. “Fiduciary duty” is in there. What’s your reaction?
Senator Arnot: I’ll withdraw my suggestion if Senator McCallum does not like what I have put forward.
The Chair: Which one is more complete?
Senator McCallum: Can we hear Senator Arnot’s observation again?
Senator Arnot: Yes:
This committee recognizes the valid, deep-seated concerns and frustrations raised by the Indigenous witnesses who appeared before the committee.
Therefore, with respect to the implementation of this bill, we expect the Government of Canada to comply with the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples, to comply with the fiduciary duty, to meet the high standard of the honour of the Crown and to comply with section 35 of the Constitution, which recognizes the treaty rights and the Indigenous rights of Indigenous people.
Senator McCallum: We should have a vote. I would be okay with that.
The committee strongly calls on the Government of Canada to improve their approach as they undertake their duty to consult with First Nations, Inuit and Métis rights holders on legislation that impacts their treaty rights and traditional lands. The committee urges the Government of Canada to adequately fulfill their duty to consult within all stages of the legislative process, from conceptualization to drafting to implementation.
The Chair: Could you repeat that sentence?
Senator McCallum: The committee urges the Government of Canada to adequately fulfill their duty to consult within all stages of the legislative process, from conceptualization to drafting to implementation.
The Chair: I’m not an expert in this matter, but I thought we were told the duty to consult is at key decision points.
Senator McCallum: If we insert, “The committee urges the Government of Canada to adequately fulfill their duty in key points,” how is the duty to consult now going to continue after this is over? Because it needs to. We can change that if you want.
Senator Sorensen: I favour Senator McCallum’s version. I think it speaks in a more general format. I support either of those observations, but I think it recognizes that some work has been done. It needs to be done — I think the word you used was “adequately,” or there were some words that said, “You need to do it.”
The Chair: Both are very good.
Senator Arnot: The way I worded this is specific to this bill, and to tell the Government of Canada more generally that they should be doing this in all cases might be a little bit overreaching. We have seen this before: It came up in the Firearms Act too, because I spoke about the same thing.
Senator Anderson: With regard to this specific bill, the two Indigenous witnesses said that they were not rights holders. With respect to this specific wording, I favour Senator Arnot’s version because it is more specific to the treaty nations that are tied to the Jasper lands. This would give the government an out, because they are not treaty rights holders but Indigenous people with ties to those lands.
The Chair: It becomes hearsay because they are not directly involved. They were not recipients of the letter. So we have to be careful with the wording. We are speculating a little bit.
Senator Robinson: Can we build on whichever one of these we choose in order to recognize what a difficult situation this has put us in? We have heard that the duty to consult wasn’t met, but we are constrained to pass this bill because of the emergency in Jasper. Can we insert an observation into that statement that recognizes that we are between a rock and a hard place?
The Chair: I’m not sure I like that, to be honest with you.
Senator Robinson: I appreciate your honesty.
The Chair: The consequences to us should be minor compared to the importance of the issue to the Indigenous people.
Senator Robinson: It is not so much about us; however, it has put us into a situation in which we must decide if we are going to move forward with legislation when the duty to consult has not been met. I want to make the observation that the government must fulfill its obligation to consult so that we can then deal with the legislation in a clean fashion, and so that we are not being forced to decide if we are going to ignore the rights of the people who hold the treaty rights.
Senator Arnot: These two comments are two separate ideas and should be two separate observations. However, I like what Senator Robinson is trying to connote, because the Senate has seen this a few times. We can’t countenance the Crown’s failing to meet the honour of the Crown. That’s what is at stake here.
Senator D. M. Wells: I would like to make two points about that: The first is that Senator Arnot’s proposed observation hits more to the point for this bill. Senator McCallum’s, which is absolutely correct, is more to the general practice of the government with regard to not fulfilling obligations. If we are dealing with observations of this bill, it is more prudent to lean toward Senator Arnot’s more directed wording — with the appropriate changes to witnesses representing treaties and that sort of thing, because we had witnesses who were representing, but there was a nuance there.
The second — and this goes to Senator Robinson’s excellent point — is that if one of our jobs is to make a bill better, and there is obviously emphasis and pressure to rubber stamp this, then it removes our obligation to even try to make it better, if that were possible or even on the table. I don’t like the idea of dealing with something that hasn’t had all the correct groundwork done, such as consultations with First Nations done in the most appropriate way.
Senator Anderson: I want to point out that Senator Arnot could be clearer by referencing all nations that are tied to Jasper National Park as part of their traditional treaty territory.
Senator Arnot: If you want to add those words to my observation, I don’t have any concerns about that. I agree. According to my understanding, the steering committee looks at all the proposed words and then finalizes them. I have been consistent with what I’m saying, but I like Senator Anderson’s proposal to make it very plain and specific to this.
The Chair: You are right. As you will notice, I will bring up the issues subsequently — with the approval of the committee — to allow the steering committee to finalize the wording and to approve it, but I think the suggestion has a lot of merit. As a steering committee, we want to make sure we express the opinion of the committee at large, not only of steering. This is good progress. Senator McCallum, are we nearly there with the comment of Senator Anderson and if we make that adjustment?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
The Chair: So, it’s okay with that issue. How about the other issue that Senator Robinson raised?
Senator Arnot: I support what Senator Robinson said. It is important to have a second observation that captures the concern she raised.
The Chair: Does anybody have proposed wording?
Senator Sorensen: Do we vote on the observations?
The Chair: We’ll vote on the observations. I want to make sure we line up our observations appropriately.
Senator Sorensen: We don’t want to vote on this one until we have talked about the other ones.
The Chair: It is the wish of the committee.
Senator Robinson: I wouldn’t mind getting one out of my brain before I start thinking about another one. I don’t know how everybody else feels. I wouldn’t mind voting on this one.
The Chair: Is that okay? Do you want to vote?
All in favour of the observation as proposed by Senator Arnot, with some amendments as we discussed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Let’s go back to the observation dealing with Senator Robinson and Senator Wells. Does anybody have a wording proposal?
Senator Dean: I wish to try something, if you would like me to.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Dean: Thank you. I propose:
While recognizing the current emergency in Jasper National Park, the committee raised concerns about considering legislation in a context in which questions have been raised about the Crown’s duty to consult.
The Chair: Any comments?
Senator Robinson: I wonder if we should be ruder or more emphatic with our language and say, “Where we have heard directly from First Nations that the Crown has failed to fulfill their duty to consult . . .”
Senator Dean: Sure, yes.
The Chair: Isn’t that part of the wording recommended by Senator Arnot? If you are going back to “duty to consult,” I thought it was covered. It was so broad. I thought you covered yourself there. What you are trying to get at is the difficult situation it puts us in. It must somehow flow from that.
Senator Dean, what are your comments there?
Senator Dean: If this gets at the concept, perhaps steering could complete the job.
The Chair: Could you help us? Could someone propose something? Senator Wells, you are full of creativity. What would you do?
Senator Dean: Yes. How about:
While recognizing the current emergency in Jasper National Park, the committee raised concerns about considering legislation where questions have been raised about the Crown’s duty to consult.
I think Senator Robinson would probably want to say, “where testimony has suggested” or “where testimony has been placed on the record that the Crown’s duty to consult has not been fulfilled . . .”
The Chair: Is that all okay? Senator McCallum, are you okay with this?
Senator McCallum: What is the Senate’s responsibility because of the Supreme Court decision that we look after people who are underrepresented — that they are our priority? What is the Senate’s responsibility when we know the duty to consult has not happened?
The Chair: There are two choices: We refuse the bill or do as we are doing, where we make an observation and try to get the attention of the government to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Senator McCallum: It does place us in a difficult position. I think we should say what our responsibility is.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: In French, we could certainly say “déplore”; “le comité déplore” is stronger than “a des inquiétudes”. I understand that we can’t translate literally. However, in French, we could say “déplore”.
[English]
The Chair: “Déplore” is very good. It conveys that this is a difficult situation they have put us in and we are nearly angry about it, which I think is the right tone.
An Hon. Senator: We are angry about it.
The Chair: I think it’s appropriate. Are you okay, Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: There is one thing, which I have raised before. It may not be appropriate here.
One of the fundamental things that should be occurring in the executive branch of government, any time legislation like this affecting Indigenous or treaty rights, section 35, in the memorandum to cabinet, the civil service should be telling the cabinet, the executive branch, that they have complied with their constitutional duty pursuant to section 35. That’s something we don’t have jurisdiction on, to tell them how to do their job.
That’s really what should be happening, so at any time there is an issue with Indigenous people and treaty rights, they must say, “We have complied,” because they are not asking those questions.
The cabinet probably didn’t ask those questions on the Firearms Act, this act or Bill C-49. However, I don’t know how you can cure that today.
The Chair: As you know, when we had the Mi’kmaq issue, we did raise an observation. We got a lengthy answer and lengthy engagement from the minister as to how they are going to repair the issue and how this will never occur again.
Senator Arnot: I didn’t know that.
The Chair: It was significant.
I forget the wording. Is that wording generic enough that it applies to us? I forget whether it was only specifically the legislation we were looking at. Does anybody remember that letter? None of us do.
What are your thoughts on the wording on the floor as amended by Senator Dean? Do we have enough there that we know what we want and how we want this to proceed?
Jesse Good, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I think your feelings about this are clear enough that we can draft a recommendation that satisfies your concerns and have it approved by steering.
The Chair: Can I formally ask for a vote on this observation as proposed? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Let me go to Senator Wells, who has another observation.
Senator D. M. Wells: I hope you will find this easy. I did write it up and pass it to my colleagues on steering; however, after the discussion we have just had, I’m going to make a slight wording change, if I may.
Colleagues, here is my proposed wording:
Because authorities and future financial resources will be provided through the passing of this bill, and the Department of Environment and Climate Change has failed in its mandate to protect forests under its jurisdiction, the federal government must ensure that the recommended measures for wildfire prevention and mitigation are implemented and this be reported to Parliament annually.
Senator Sorensen: I completely agree with the one that was just put in front of me, which did not have that second sentence about the federal government.
I can’t agree to the statement that you have added. What I am reading here I think is great.
Senator D. M. Wells: What you are reading there is not what is on the table.
Senator Sorensen: It is what I was given. You have just edited something on the fly.
I disagree with the statement that’s in the middle. I can support it if that’s removed, but I can’t support it —
The Chair: Is it the second sentence that you don’t like?
Senator Sorensen: It is the part about the Department of Environment and Climate Change.
Senator D. M. Wells: Let me read it again:
. . . and the Department of Environment and Climate Change has failed in its mandate to protect forests under its jurisdiction . . .
We learned that at committee. We learned that directly.
Senator Arnot: I agree with Senator Sorensen, Senator Wells. I don’t know if we could come to that conclusion based on what we heard. I’m not sure we can say they failed on the basis of what we heard. That’s why I agree with the original wording. I will make that comment.
Senator McCallum: I agree. I can’t say the department has failed. I don’t have a report. I don’t know. I’m uncomfortable with that.
Senator D. M. Wells: I am fine to strike that and go with the original wording.
The Chair: How about saying, “There are questions as to . . .”?
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes.
The Chair: Therefore you are not stipulating it, but you are saying there are questions asking —
Senator D. M. Wells: We did —
Senator Arnot: Senator Wells, if you take that out, this is going to pass in about three seconds.
Senator D. M. Wells: That’s not what drives me, as you may know.
Senator Arnot: I know that.
The Chair: Read what you’d like to see.
Senator D. M. Wells: I like your middle ground. I asked the minister whether his land management program was a success. It clearly wasn’t because every day we talk about the fact that fires are burning. We hear the minister and other ministers say it. If we don’t say it here, are we saying that their forest management practices are a success? Clearly, they’re not.
Senator Sorensen: I live in this world, and in my previous role, I worked with this ministry and with Parks Canada for 17 years. Wildfires are wildfires, and not every fire is preventable, unless you want to make a clearing all the way back into the forest and put in a cement parking lot around these municipalities. As with all the other massive fires in this country, I feel horrible about this fire. You and I differ on this: You keep pointing to the 30% that burned, and I keep pointing to the 70% that was saved. I’m sorry; I’m very emotional about this.
How this fire ended, without people dead and with everybody having been evacuated, I’m hesitating to use the word “success” because it’s a hard word to use in association with this. However, the prevention, preparedness, mitigation, Parks Canada fire crews and everybody else who flew in to help that community saved 70% of this town, and I cannot accept what you’re saying. As I said, I’m happy to support this, but any indication that there has been a failure to prevent every fire in this country is not a founded comment in my mind.
Senator D. M. Wells: I’m not clouded by emotion on this. At one time, I was the head of a regulator that looked after environment in the offshore. There’s a system for looking at negative events called the bow tie system. The three stages are as follows: everything that you can do to prevent something, then the event, then everything afterward that you can do to prevent damage, injury and that sort of thing. Think about driving a car: Before an accident, we have inspections for vehicles, driver’s licences, street lights and all the things that can prevent incidents. Then you have an incident; we always do. You have seat belts, airbags, guardrails and insurance, and then there is everything that comes after that.
This observation, Senator Sorensen, has nothing to do with all the things that happened after the fire started. I’m only talking about the things that the Department of Environment and Climate Change did not do in the face of all evidence, expert reports and testimony in forums that happened prior to the event. I’m not talking about all the wonderful, important and life-saving things that happened afterward. That’s not what I’m talking about.
Here is what I’m talking about: It was clear in the evidence that I heard, and the documents that I read in preparation for our hearings, that the department failed. There were warnings given as far back as 2017 that the department didn’t do this. This was a tinderbox. This was just waiting to happen. All it needed was a spark. We heard all of that. That’s what I’m addressing. I’m not addressing any of the wonderful things that happened — nor do I want to. It was great that it was only 30%. That’s terrific, but I don’t even want 30%.
While I don’t live in Alberta, my job is to care about legislation that makes things better, and I think this does.
Senator Arnot: I think that this issue should be dealt with in a comprehensive way. I have a big concern about forest fires and the ad hoc way that they’re dealt with in Canada. I think we need a national strategy, and I think this committee is committed to studying climate disaster and specifically forest fires. The example that was used was Lytton, B.C., and floods that happened because of climate change and climate disaster. We are supposed to be looking at that in part of our work plan, which I really support. I think it’s really important. But I won’t be able to support Senator Wells.
The Chair: Senator Wells, the bottom line is that you’re not going to achieve consensus or even a majority, to be very frank with you. I appreciate the questions it raises. I have no problem with that. But I don’t think we have enough evidence to reach the conclusions, so I strongly recommend that the second paragraph say, “Questions arise as to . . .” In other words, you leave it open to say that we should learn more about it, but I don’t think we have enough evidence to say that they are certainly incompetent.
I think you should go back and say that there are questions which arose, et cetera. Would that be acceptable to you?
Senator D. M. Wells: That’s acceptable to me. In the absence of saying something, we’re saying, as the minister says, “Great success: forest management.”
The Chair: We can’t reach those conclusions.
Senator D. M. Wells: I understand.
Senator Sorensen: I don’t know what the final wording will look like. I can support the wording given to me in advance. I like this and can accept this, but I’m not necessarily going to agree to anything else.
The Chair: Senator Wells, could you read what you propose further to my discussion?
Senator D. M. Wells: I might ask you to recite your wording.
The Chair: I don’t have the wording in front of me.
Senator D. M. Wells: I don’t have your wording in front of me.
Senator Arnot: Senator Wells, if you went with what you proposed, I would support it 100%.
Senator D. M. Wells: I appreciate that, but I think we need to go a step further. Senator Massicotte, I think that’s what you were suggesting. Do you want me to write something up on it?
The Chair: If you don’t mind. In the meantime, I’ll pursue the rest of the meeting, if you don’t mind taking a minute to add those four or five words.
We’ll come back to deal with this amendment, but if I can’t, I’ll proceed with the reading. Are there any other observations that people propose?
[Translation]
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical and translation changes?
[English]
I’m now proposing this resolution that gives the authority to the steering committee to finalize the wording for all observations. Is that all acceptable to you? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages, taking into account Senator Wells’ observation?
[English]
Is that okay? Before we close, I’ll give Senator Wells another minute.
Senator D. M. Wells: Colleagues, let’s try this:
Because authorities and future financial resources will be provided through the passing of this bill and the Department of Environment and Climate Change could have done more in the mitigation of the fires, the federal government must ensure that the recommended measures for wildfire prevention and mitigation are implemented and that this be reported to Parliament annually.
The Chair: Could I comment? I have a problem with the second sentence, or perhaps it was the first. Could you read it slowly again?
Senator D. M. Wells: “. . . and that the Department of Environment and Climate Change —” which is the department responsible “— could have done more in the mitigation of the fires . . .”
The Chair: That part is where we get hung up a little bit.
Senator Sorensen: Just for clarification if I were to consider this — and I won’t — it’s Parks Canada. It’s not the ministry. I know the ministry oversees Parks Canada, but it’s Parks Canada. It’s their agency, but it’s semantics.
Senator D. M. Wells: My question, because I don’t live in the park, would be this: Did the wildfires happen outside the park?
Senator Sorensen: No.
Senator D. M. Wells: Wildfires happen outside parks.
Senator Sorensen: Absolutely.
Senator D. M. Wells: Then that’s where I’m going.
Senator Sorensen: Fair enough, but I still can’t support that.
I kept getting allusions that there was going be something different, but you’re saying the same thing every time in three different ways.
The Chair: We have a problem with the conclusion. You have a hard accusation of wrongdoing in a sense, and that’s the problem.
Senator D. M. Wells: The department could have done more in the mitigation.
The Chair: Or “questions arise as to whether the department could have done more . . .” I like that better.
Senator D. M. Wells: Okay. I’m good with that.
The Chair: Because I think we have questions, but we don’t have information to reach conclusions. Is that okay?
Senator D. M. Wells: “Questions arise,” yes. Then no one is at fault.
The Chair: Read the whole thing, then, if you don’t mind.
Senator D. M. Wells: “Because authorities and future financial resources will be provided through the passing of this bill, and —” past tense “— questions arose . . .” I must mention the department:
. . . questions arose regarding the mitigation activities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the federal government must ensure that the recommended measures for wildfire prevention and mitigation are implemented and this be reported to Parliament annually.
Colleagues, I have “reported to Parliament annually,” because we can’t compel them, but there has to be some level of accountability here. This wasn’t a good event. This was a bad event.
The Chair: Any comments as to the proposed amended observation?
Senator Sorensen: Absolutely. Every committee I sit on, every piece of legislation I look at, questions arise, and I would never include a statement like that in an observation. I don’t think it belongs in an observation. As I said, with every committee and every piece of legislation, questions arise. Wrongdoing is potentially pointed out.
I just ask for a voice vote on this, and I’ll be voting against this.
I’m sorry, Senator Wells, because I really liked this amendment, but I can’t support the middle piece, no matter how you word it.
Senator D. M. Wells: That’s fine.
The Chair: Let’s do the proposed —
Senator D. M. Wells: Let’s move to a vote.
The Chair: I want to make sure people are hearing.
If there are no other comments, we’ll proceed to a voice vote, if you wish.
Senator McCallum: I understand the concern that Senator Wells has, and when we went on the tour in Alberta, questions did arise about fire safety there at that time — this was a few weeks before — and that Banff would be in the same situation as Jasper, and it’s only a matter of time before the fire hits Banff as well.
That did come up, so I understand that we need to have someone really take a serious look at how they are going to prevent fires there. And they do. They have that capability, and it was said that it may be 10 years, and they’re running out of time, because it’s going to happen sooner or later. That is where I’m concerned about it as well.
Senator Arnot: I would speak to Senator McCallum. I think this committee is going to study that exact issue with the proposed work plan. That’s my understanding.
The Chair: But that’s much broader. Here we’re talking specifically relative to —
Senator Arnot: I’m going to move a motion to amend Senator Wells’s observation.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Arnot: That is to take all the words out that are not in this printed version. I’m moving an amendment to his observation.
Senator D. M. Wells: There was a motion to vote, and then if it’s voted down —
The Chair: Then there’s a discussion.
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes.
The Chair: Any other comments or discussion relative to the proposed observation of Senator Wells?
Senator McCallum: Could I ask a question? When we look at “the federal government must ensure that the recommended measures for wildfire prevention and mitigation are implemented,” does that cover the concern that you have?
Senator D. M. Wells: It covers my concern, yes.
Senator McCallum: Why don’t we just leave it like this, then?
Senator D. M. Wells: That will remain in there. The whole discussion was about the activities of the responsible department, because questions arose around what was done.
We can go through the committee notes again, but we heard a certain number of hectares, but it wasn’t told to us as a percentage. It was like 1.4%.
The Chair: Would you mind again reading the proposed observation?
Senator D. M. Wells: Yes:
“Because authorities and future financial resources will be provided through the passing of this bill —” this is where we’re going to add in “— and questions arose regarding the Department of Environment and Climate Change and their mitigation measures —” something like that; we can wordsmith it “— the federal government must ensure that the recommended measures for wildfire prevention and mitigation are implemented —” and that is because we’re saying they weren’t, so now we’re saying they need to be “— and this be reported to Parliament annually.”
The Chair: Are there any other comments relative to that before we go to a voice vote? Are there any other comments?
I ask all those in favour of the amendment as proposed by Senator Wells —
Senator Sorensen: I want a vote. I want everybody to be asked.
The Chair: A recorded vote, then?
Senator Sorensen: Yes, thank you. Sorry about that.
Senator McCallum: Could we hear it again?
Senator D. M. Wells: Recognizing that we’ll polish it up at steering if we get the authority to do so:
Because authorities and future financial resources will be provided through the passing of this bill and questions arose regarding mitigation measures under the authority of the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the federal government must ensure that the recommended measures for wildfire prevention and mitigation are implemented and this be reported to Parliament annually.
The Chair: Let’s go with the recorded vote.
[Translation]
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Anderson?
Senator Anderson: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Dean?
Senator Dean: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Robinson?
Senator Robinson: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Sorensen?
Senator Sorensen: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Verner?
Senator Verner: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: Yeas: 6; nays: 3.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Are there any other comments?
Senator Arnot: I was hoping to make this my amendment and have it passed. I have no further comments.
The Chair: Good try.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you, Senator Wells, for softening the tone.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill, with observations, to the Senate in both official languages?
[English]
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Thank you very much. This was a good discussion.
(The committee adjourned.)