Tom Nesbitt

One of the primary responsibilities of a facilitator is to help create and maintain the space within which consensus can be developed. As the chair of the park Management Board (since 1998), I try to help people remember, understand, and fully uphold the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA), the Sahtu Dene and Métis Land Claim Agreement, and the Tuktut Nogait Agreement.

When I began working in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) in the late 1980s, the people of Paulatuuq proposed the establishment of Tuktut Nogait National Park (Tuktut Nurrait). Tey did this primarily to protect the calving grounds of the Bluenose caribou herd (at the time, understood to be one herd), which now lie largely within the national park. And they did this in the context of the IFA.

Te IFA (1984) fundamentally changed relationships, by creating more equitable relationships between Inuvialuit and the federal and territorial governments. Inuvialuit now have a strong say in how questions afecting Inuvialuit life, culture, economy, and environment are to be addressed and resolved. Inuvialuit are the original inhabitants of the land in the ISR.

Te Tuktut Nogait Agreement provides for the consensus-based management of Tuktut Nogait National Park and confirms that Inuvialuit rights, including harvesting rights, run throughout the national park.

Several parties negotiated the Tuktut Nogait Agreement between 1991 and 1996. Tey include the Paulatuuq Hunters and Trappers Committee, the Paulatuuq Community Corporation, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC), the Inuvialuit Game Council, Parks Canada, and the Government of Northwest Territories. I advised Paulatuuq, facilitated the negotiations, and was one of the drafters of the Agreement.

We concluded the Tuktut Nogait Agreement in 1996 and Tuktut Nogait was formally established as a national park in 1998. Looking back now, the wisdom of Paulatuuq’s initiative is reflected in the fact that Tuktut Nogait now represents the only major caribou calving grounds in the Canadian north that is permanently protected in legislation.

x WHAT’S DIFFERENT ABOUT TUKTUT NOGAIT?

It’s all about decision-making and how we collectively determine our future. Can we truly share decision-making in Canada’s national parks and other protected areas? In agreeing to make decisions afecting these areas by the Indigenous tradition of consensus, might we contribute to reconciliation?

From the outset of the Tuktut Nogait negotiations, Paulatuuq was adamant about establishing a new relationship with the Government of Canada. Paulatuuq wanted what it called a “partnership”, but Government of Canada lawyers would not accept that word. Tings went back and forth repeatedly, and Paulatuuq grew impatient with the Government. Paulatuuq asked me to work out something with the Government’s senior negotiators and report back. If we could find nothing acceptable, Paulatuuq would pursue a national wildlife area rather than a national park to protect the herd and its calving grounds. Tree of us sat down. Te government repeated its concerns with the concept of partnership.

I realized that the traditional Inuvialuit way of making decisions—consensus decision-making— might be the solution to our impasse. I had learned consensus from Billy Day, the Inuvialuk Elder I had first worked for in the ISR. Inuvialuit and the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories came to agree to make management decisions in Tuktut Nogait through the age-old Indigenous process of consensus. In consensus decision-making, we slow the conversation down. It’s like music with a slower cadence. We let mutual respect guide us. We create a space for reflection rather than reaction. We encourage everyone to speak. We listen and make every efort to weave participants’ diferent perspectives together into one consistent whole. We don’t trade the Indigenous perspective of against traditional “government” perspectives.

Te consensus can emerge when we step back from the hardened positions we bring to the table and reflect on our underlying collective objectives. Tere are no narrow motions, no countermotions and no votes per the usual method of “Robert’s Rules of Order”. In consensus, a neutral chair facilitates the discussion, ensures that all have an opportunity to speak, and that the discussion is respectful, safe, and fair to all. Te facilitator intervenes when there appears to be a consensus, suggests the emerging consensus, and leaves all substantial decisions with the other participants in the discussion. Decisions can be made very efciently, and arguably endure longer. Relationships are created and strengthened.

Consensus is about deciding things together, not just advising a “government” department. We work on the many layers of hearing, understanding, respecting and collaborating with each other. We come from such different cultures, backgrounds and perspectives, all of which can contribute if we allow them to co-exist.

Moving Along The Negotiations

We had to work further on the Tuktut Nogait Agreement. Paulatuuq considered the concept that parks Canada would “consult” diferent Paulatuuq community organizations and make the final, government decisions.

Paulatuuq was familiar with the belief that “government” must have the final say and control the outcome.

Paulatuuq rejected this consultation model.

At the end of the day, the negotiated Tuktut Nogait Agreement is an alliance between Inuvialuit and the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories. Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada jointly appoint the members of the Tuktut Nogait Management Board (one on the advice of the GNWT). Te Chair, who must remain impartial, is jointly appointed by Inuvialuit and the Minister responsible for national parks. Te Minister retains the decision-making powers established in the legislation, and Inuvialuit retain their IFA rights, including the right to harvest and establish harvesting camps in the park.

Te Minister responsible for national parks must send a Superintendent to Board meetings so that final dayto-day management decisions can be made at Board meetings, respectfully and efciently. All parties agree to exercise their respective powers and make decisions afecting the national park by consensus. Te Management Board is merely the place where Inuvialuit authorities and Parks Canada agree to give a consensus a chance. But, in the 23 years (since 1998) that Inuvialuit and Parks Canada have been jointly managing this national park, the Board has never failed to come to a consensus on the park issues before it.

Later, in 2005, the Government of Canada negotiated an agreement with the Déline Land Corporation—now the Déline Gótine Government (DGG)—to extend the national park south into the Sahtu Settlement Area.

Tis extension encompasses the entire watershed of the Hornaday River, strengthening the protection of the park’s ecological integrity as a whole. Te 2005 agreement also authorizes the DGG to appoint a member to the Management Board, while renewing historic friendships between Paulatuuq and Déline.

I still remember the Management Board’s trip down to Déline, for the signing of the 2005 agreement. John Max (Mufa) Kudlak gave a very moving speech to Déline, thanking that community for helping protect the Hornaday River system—so important to Paulatuuq. Alfred Taniton, one of the Elders of Déline, stood and commended the young Paulatuuq Dancers for their initiative and exemplary drum dancing.

Tuktut Nogait is a diferent sort of national park with a diferent sort of management board. Park management has evolved over the years into a relationship primarily between the Indigenous authorities and Parks Canada. Tis park presents diferent challenges, particularly because it is diferent. Others are sometimes inclined to see and understand the Board and the role of the Indigenous parties using the traditional “consultation” model. I’d suggest seeing an alliance between the Indigenous authorities and the Government of Canada based on consensus decision-making. It’s hard work to uphold and implement the Tuktut Nogait Agreement, but people are generally well-intentioned and good to work with. We can learn something from each other in almost every meeting—if our eyes and minds are open.

We normally meet in Paulatuuq or Inuuvik, but also meet yearly on the land. Tis is important because we listen to and learn from the profound stillness of the land.

The Role Of Elders

Te Elders can teach us, often quietly and by example, if we are willing to hear and see what they are saying and not saying. Billy Day, my first teacher in the ISR, illustrated for me what consensus is and how it is carried out. I worked for Billy as COPE’s land use planning coordinator. I remember watching him run an Inuuvik Community Corporation meeting in 1986. I was both fascinated by and uncertain about what he was doing. He went quietly and respectfully around the room, giving each person a real opportunity to contribute, and helping the Community Corporation discuss issues and form its consensus. It was a totally diferent way of running a meeting and making collective decisions! Tere was almost no direction from Billy. Te consensus emerges, in its own time, from the discussion.

Several of our past and present Board members are now Elders in their own right: John Max (Mufa) Kudlak, Noel Green, Peter Green, Ruben Green, Ray Ruben, Fred Bennett, Ellen Lee, Bill Ruben Sr., Lawrence Ruben and Gordon Norberg. We never cease to learn—and to be surprised—by the many perspectives that come to Tuktut Nogait Board meetings.

The Role Of Young People Today

We negotiated this national park roughly 25 years ago. Representatives of Paulatuuq and I were all 25 years younger than we now are. At the time, the Paulatuuq negotiators had already negotiated the IFA and they had a strong understanding of the roles they wanted to play in the management of the calving grounds and the park. By the same token, 25 years have now passed. Another younger generation of Inuvialuit, willing to take over in the management of the national park, has not yet stepped forward. Luckily, we now have Lanita Trasher on the Board and Tracey Wolki in the Paulatuuq ofce. We’ve tried for many years, using diferent means, to involve younger people in the management of this park. Tey’ve told us that they need to strengthen their relationship with the land before being able to say what roles they want to play in park planning, operation, and management. We respect that and want to give them the time and opportunities they need to connect with the land. So, we hold cultural camps on the land every couple of years, primarily for younger Inuvialuit to connect with the land, their Elders, and their culture. We remain open to the involvement of younger Inuvialuit as they are comfortable determining it.

Inuvialuit and the Governments of Canada and the NWT negotiated the Tuktut Agreement in 1996. We did this in the context of the amendment of the Canadian Constitution in 1982 and the settlement of the IFA in 1984. Since that time, there has been growing recognition of Indigenous rights in Canada, and of the value of consensus decision-making with Indigenous authorities. 1996 is now a long time ago. Te recognition of the proper role of Indigenous authorities in establishing and managing national parks, also designated as “Indigenous Conservation and Protected Areas”, has grown in Canada since 1996.

I now wonder whether the Tuktut Nogait Agreement should be updated to broaden and more clearly recognize the consensus decision-making process in this national park, the alliance between the Indigenous parties and the Government of Canada, and the role of the Indigenous parties, particularly Inuvialuit, in managing the park and protecting the calving grounds.

I’ve been privileged to be involved in this national park since the first discussion of the concept of protecting the calving grounds in 1986. Why am I still involved? Good people to work with; people of integrity, always conjoined with a sense of humour; the importance of protecting the land, the caribou, the culture and Aboriginal rights; and the need to uphold the land claim agreements and the consensus-based decision-making process set out in the Tuktut Nogait Agreement.