Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 10 - Evidence - Afternoon sitting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 6, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-29, to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence, met this day at 1:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I will call the meeting to order. This is the resumption of the hearings of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We are examining the provisions of Bill C-29, Parks Canada Agency legislation, which is designed to create an agency of Parks Canada that will operate separately and somewhat independently from government, albeit under the direction of the minister. We are proceeding to examine in this committee the benefits of this legislation, and we have had a number of witnesses appear before us this morning, and this afternoon we have Dr. Robert Page.
Dr. Page is well known in the environmental area. He is past dean at the University of Calgary and he is presently with TransAlta Utilities, where he is working in environmental capacities. He is well known throughout for his energies and the environmental work that he does. We thank you very much for coming.
Dr. Page, in my mind, some of your most important work is as the Chairman of the Banff-Bow Valley Task Force, which has been before this committee. We recognize it as an excellent piece of work. We hope that it is something that could be continued right across Canada.
Dr. Robert Page, Vice-President, Sustainable Development, TransAlta Utilities Corporation: Thank you for this opportunity to appear this afternoon. It is important to try to put my appearance here in a proper context. I am unabashedly a lover of parks, a user of parks. I do not come at this topic with a scientific detachment that might be expected in connection with some of these issues, but I am very grateful.
Also, in the light of the Banff-Bow Valley Study, in the light of any comments I may be making this afternoon, I have great admiration for Tom Lee and the minister. We have had an excellent working relationship both with the department and the minister through the whole of the Banff-Bow Valley Study. I am talking this afternoon about structural questions, about the kind of structure that I believe is necessary for Parks Canada in its new agency form. I also want to emphasize that this issue was not dealt with in the mandate of the Banff-Bow Valley Study. We were looking at local and regional management questions more than the overall national management in connection with it.
In the week since I have been invited to this committee, I have been on the road for my company and also for the National Process on Greenhouse Gases, so I do not have a formal briefing document to give you. There is a one page summary, which has been circulated to you, and if at the end of today there are areas that you wish me to elaborate further, I will be happy to do so.
One equivocal comment is that in the 25 years that I have been involved with Parks from the outside, I have always felt that this kind of a change was both necessary and desirable. I felt that it was a change that would help to take Parks to a new plateau. We all recognize that the Canadian National Parks system is one of the finest in the world, but we are also trying to look at the ways in which we can improve it further. So, in terms of any comments later, I want there to be no misunderstanding with regard to my basic thrust to the bill and to my basic belief that further autonomy for Parks through an agency status will in fact enhance its capability to deliver on the national parks mandate.
If you go back to the preamble of the bill and you look at the enormous number of areas that Parks Canada is expected to cover: from recreation, tourism, science and ecology, to contributions to local and regional economies. When you look at all of those things together, you begin to see the enormously complex task that Parks are prepared to undertake in the national interest. That is the first point I would make with regard to the desirability of that agency status.
I would like to take you through that 25-year period in which Parks has gone from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Environment Canada and most recently on to Heritage Canada. It is my opinion that those transfers weakened the effectiveness of their delivery on the mandate. There were occasions when it was very attractive for deputies to raid the Parks budget in order to try to subsidize other areas of their departmental responsibilities. I also believe that there were times when the science mandate of Parks was interfered with in terms of outside influences of one kind or another in connection with it. Given this history, I believe that the autonomy that an agency status will give is very important to Tom Lee or to his successors as CEO of the new agency, to carry forward that mandate.
This autonomy will actually increase the ability for the parliamentary scrutiny of Parks through some of the changes that I will be talking about, in connection with my own presentation. I want to ensure that that parliamentary scrutiny, that reporting, that accountability is made even more effective for the future, because parks are a national symbol that we all treasure. Parks, next to the flag and the national anthem -- and in one of the polls, the health service -- bring Canadians together, in terms of making them feel unique in the world and in contributing to their sense of identity. I also believe that all of us who are outside Parks are enormously grateful to those elements of the public service that have been involved in Parks, like the warden service and other areas. I think that they have been some of the most exemplary areas of the Public Service of Canada.
However, I do believe that there are certain ways in which we can improve. First of all, I would like to look at the issue that was raised by the bi-annual stakeholders meeting, which is proposed by Parks. I welcome this, but in my opinion, I believe that it is inadequate to deal with the very real and pressing need for public input into decision-making in Parks. I want to make a very important distinction here. There is a distinction between informing people, in which they get a sense of what has happened or what decisions have been made and what has happened, and on a regular basis consulting the public in terms of actual meaningful input into decision-making. In my opinion, a bi-annual stakeholders meeting will not be adequate in connection with this. I would like to propose this afternoon that there be a national advisory council of informed stakeholders to work with senior management in Parks, to meet quarterly with the management of Parks and to interact in a way that will be meaningful, from the management point of view.
I would like to share with you some of the perceptions of the Canadian public, from right across this country, when we consulted them regarding the Banff-Bow Valley Study. A great number of Canadians told us that they were cynical: that they didn't feel that their input would play any meaningful role in national parks decision-making. We were quite disturbed, as were a number of Parks officials, by some of the input that came in. This kind of a proposal will help to address that cynicism, which is so unfortunate, particularly in regard to one of our national symbols.
What I am after here is meaningful, ongoing consultative input, in which there is a kind of interactive dialogue between management and the major stakeholders, which makes it clear that management is serving in the national interest. I would think here that science, the NGOs, the residents, tourism, the Canadian Parks Partnership, which is the alliance of volunteers and other users, are all people who could legitimately play a role in such a process.
Out of this would then come a multilateral dialogue for management, which would be useful. I would like to take you back for one moment to an aspect of the Banff-Bow Valley Study. In the early months of our operations, we set up such a round table for the Bow Valley, which included national organizations as well as local organizations. It met monthly, for two days. Everyone gave up time for that process. Within two or three months, we began to have a dialogue on management issues and parks issues, which the Superintendent of Banff indicated to me was on a level that had never occurred before in the park.
I think we can trigger a similar dialogue nationally on our national parks with such a body. It in turn would provide informed comment for the senior management of parks, and second, it would provide informed stakeholders going back to their stakeholders to explain the complex issues that Parks management was involved with. It is a two-way street and there are benefits in both directions. Above all, it would provide a continuing sense of accountability to stakeholders across the country and would complement the bi-annual stakeholders meeting, which Parks are proposing.
We tried to deal with this really important issue in the Banff-Bow Valley Study. With the cut-backs, Parks no longer has all the in-house capability in the areas related to its management. Therefore, drawing informed participants from other sectors into this kind of working relationship would certainly be supportive and helpful. This is not a board of directors to tell Parks what to do. It is an outside advisory body to complement their internal processes.
In addition, we must speak of the role of the Auditor General and his office. We have central agencies of government to do specific functions. It seems to me that the financial review by the Auditor General, which is in the act, is a most appropriate and legitimate thing. I would also like to recommend, in an equally important way, that the commissioner for sustainable development in the Auditor General's Office play a role with regard to the environmental assessment of Parks and a review of their performance.
I have considerable respect for Brian Emmett and his staff. I have seen them work at close quarters. I have seen their efforts to balance environmental and economic considerations in terms of sustainable development. As a central agency of government, they are used to playing exactly this kind of role.
It seems that an informed report on an annual basis by the Commissioner for Sustainable Development would complement the work of this committee. It would provide it with insights and data, and would therefore increase the accountability to Parliament.
Last, in connection with this specific point, it would also help to demonstrate a lot of the strengths of some of the internal mechanisms within Parks, which in some cases, have not been properly brought to public attention.
Next, I will speak of the role of the Deputy Minister for Canadian Heritage. I have enormous respect for the work of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the role it plays in Canada, particularly in difficult times. I am quite happy to see the deputy ministers and the principal advisor to the minister relating to these issues and to some of the overall questions that relate to the department. But I do not agree with the document that was supplied to me by your committee as a background document to the bill. It says that the deputy minister of Canadian Heritage will retain the responsibility and capacity for strategic policy development and advice through the preparation of cabinet and legislative proposals as they relate to the framework for the various responsibilities of Canadian parks.
My concern here is that the development of strategic policy should be the responsibility of the agency. The documents going to Parliament with the minister's approval should be coming from the agency. It is weakening some of the strengths of autonomy within the department by making this provision. What you are giving with one hand, you are taking away with the other, in connection with it. Parks are very competent in developing their own strategic plans for the future. I would like to share with you a private comment, which may reflect bias on my part, but there is a very clear overlap between the central thrust of Canadian Heritage and things like historic parks and sites. There is a less clear overlap when you come to the scientific aspects and the ecological aspects of the Parks mandate in connection with it. This to me is one of the important elements in trying to provide the autonomy through agency status.
Next, I would like to deal with science, no doubt quite inadequately. But the thing to remember above all is that Parks Canada, like our atmospheric environmental service, has a very clear science mandate. It is the principal means by which Canada delivers on the international Biodiversity Convention, on the World Heritage Convention on World Heritage Sites and other such matters. It is very important to remember that the current Prime Minister, in his address in Montreal in October 1996, emphasized very heavily Canada's commitment to biodiversity to the convention and to the World Heritage Sites issues. It is important to remember this in looking at the management of science within Parks. Central to the Parks mandate, as you see in the preamble to the act, are two words: "ecological integrity". They are incredibly difficult to manage. They are incredibly difficult to put into effective and coherent management plans for our national parks and at the same time preserve the scientific intent of that wording.
We must then look at ways of supplementing the in-house science of Parks, which is at quite a high level. We must supplement that with external means of complementing the in-house capability. That is the only way in which we will meet all of the science goals of the Parks mandate. It is very important to recognize the resources available to Parks alone are just not capable of dealing with that. It seems to me that we need to try to mobilize some of the external scientific capability, in universities, in the private sector and in NGOs to try to supplement that within Parks itself. I would commend to you a marvellous example of the Government of Alberta, the federal government and the private sector working together: the Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project. It involves scientists from a whole variety of directions in Canada; oil money; private sector money from a variety of directions; individual, provincial and federal contributions. It is a five-year, world-class research project, which is critical to the future of the grizzly bears in the foothills in the national parks and other places in Alberta.
I am trying to suggest that science is serious, costly and professional. We must be able to provide those scientific resources and develop them for Parks. It seems to me that adding a senior scientist, who would report directly to the CEO of the new agency, would be helpful. I also think that regular independent assessment of Park science, the way the Banff-Bow Valley report was, would also be complementary and helpful to Parks for the future.
The last point is the fee question. It is peripheral to the bill and yet it is background, because, in my opinion, the resources for Parks are still inadequate to fulfil its mandate. I would like to see, for a variety of social purposes, some flexibility given to Parks for the future with regard to fees. In particular, I would like to touch on just two areas. In my experience in national parks, the current level of fees is hurting the involvement of Canadian youth and seniors. I do not wish to see any lowering of the fee levels, but I do feel, for both the youth of this country and for the seniors, both of whom have the time to enjoy national parks, that it would be wise to have a more flexible arrangement. I would like to encourage them to experience the national parks as an outdoor classroom, and the sheer aesthetic joy of our national parks as a symbol of what it means to be a Canadian. I do not think the dollar levels are great here. It is a symbolic gesture.
On the trails of Banff and Jasper in the last year, I met so many seniors slogging their way up trails who have said to me, " I have wanted to do this all my life and now finally, after retiring at age 64, I can do it." But unfortunately, with retirement, financial constraints come into play. The last point on fees is that they can also be linked as an incentive to the voluntary sector, which is an enormously important part of the future for Parks. The Canadian Parks Partnership, the Friends of Banff, the friends of so many national parks in historic sites across this country are ready and willing. But there needs to be recognition of their services. They should also be given incentives to do all that they might for national parks. A remission of fees, as a token gesture to those people who are spending so many hours of their time every year in support of national parks, would be helpful. It would be a small thing, but it would be a gesture.
I support this bill and I want to emphasize that, in terms of any criticisms I have made. In supporting this bill, I believe that it can be made better in three areas. It can be improved in terms of meaningful input in decision-making, not just public relations or public information. Second, the whole issue of strategic, central future planning for Parks should be the responsibility of the agency, not the department. Third, we must have more direct, independent, external scientific input into the management of Parks for the future to meet that mandate, which is in the preamble of the act. At least five or six of the items in the preamble come back to ecological integrity, ecosystem management and our international responsibilities.
I wish to commend the Senate committee for its interest in this act. I look forward to your final reports or comments on this.
Senator Spivak: Thank you for your presentation. It is most inspirational to hear this. Your suggestions for improvement are very worthwhile. Could you expand a bit more on Canada's international responsibilities and the scientific accountability of Parks Canada. Mr. Ken McCready, who is here today, said some time ago that the bill should spell out what the Parks Canada specific and explicit conservation mandate is. Do you see this as an amendment to the bill? I have not examined the bill with a fine toothcomb, but in your opinion, does it contain enough authority and specificity to spell out that sort of mandate, which is most important?
Mr. Page: Paragraph (c) in the preamble deals with this very directly.
Senator Spivak: There was an attempt to put that in the bill.
Mr. Page: You are stealing my thunder here. The government and the agency have recognized in the preamble that this is an important responsibility. Now, how do we manage international scientific responsibilities?
My sense, having spent just months of my life as Chairman of the Banff-Bow Valley Study trying to cope with the term "ecological integrity" is that these things are very hard to define. They are working relationships. The key thing, in terms of dealing with this, is to have a management structure in which you can assure that scientific input is coming in at the most senior levels continuously, and I hoped that the proposals I made would do that.
Will they be effective? I am sure that, from Kevin's point of view, he would much prefer to see it actually entrenched right in the bill.
The issue here is that Canada is already legally bound by these international conventions, having signed and ratified them. I am not sure that there is some extension of that by formally putting it into the act. How much, I am not sure. It is really important to have that kind of scientific conscience within management and ensure that it is coming right to the top, to the CEO of the new agency. That is probably more important than putting it into the act, but I have no opposition to seeing the suggestion with regard to the act included in it.
Senator Spivak: In our trips out west and in your study, there is great attention being paid to not only the parks, but the buffer zones around the parks and everything else that is outside of the parks. Will this legislation assist? Outside the parks, you are dealing not just with the federal government, but with provincial governments, municipalities and so forth. Will this agency have the same kind of clout? Will it be inclined to do that or will its focus be narrowed? How do you view that issue with respect to this legislation?
Mr. Page: I was on the provincial Special Places 2000 committee at the same time that I was chairing the Banff-Bow Valley Study. One of the most critical dealings was with the provincial ministers in Alberta and British Columbia and the regional officials of environmental protection in Alberta, who were responsible for parks. I cannot agree more with you on the need for the buffer zone.
What I do think, and this is a very personal opinion, is that having an independent agency gives it a little more leeway in dealing with provincial officials in the region. I do not have substantial evidence because the agency is not in place yet, but it would give it a little more autonomy and a status in Edmonton or in Victoria that is a little different than just the Government of Canada. In other words, it would be the Government of Canada plus, rather than the Government of Canada minus. That is important.
I also think that there were times in my past -- this was before the Banff-Bow Valley Study -- where very public spats between the minister responsible and the department responsible for Parks in other directions -- it could be climate change or something else -- then overlapped into the Parks area to interfere with the communication of Parks with their provincial counterparts in connection with it. There inevitably will be differences of opinion on national parks between provinces and the federal government, but it seems to me that having an independent agency minimizes somewhat some of the tensions of a department being drawn in other directions. That would be my off-the-cuff reflections on that.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Thank you very much for attending and making your presentation. It is heartening to have someone with your experience support this bill. Your comments are very interesting and you make some good points. I could not help thinking that some of them could be incorporated in a management process and not necessarily required as a change in the act. I would hope that this agent is not a static agent but one that is subject to change, to evolve, as changes require it to do so.
I was interested in your comment regarding the deputy minister. It seems to me that part of the management's mandate would be to push strategic change, but in the arrangement, I would also hope that it would be the responsibility of the deputy minister to push for this same change, as the deputy minister reports to Parliament through the minister. So it may be that there are two avenues for strategic planning that would be included in the bill, but the point is well taken that strategic planning is required.
Mr. Page: This is a really important issue because it is the way in which government chooses to organize business and the flow of documents to Parliament and the flow of documents to the public in connection with it.
My experience has been that the more layers of this that there are before you get to the minister, the more watered down the original intent of some of the middle management and the Parks management becomes. In my opinion, some of the best ideas come from the superintendents and from those levels right down at the national park, and there is a filtering process as they go up. That filtering process brings in some political considerations that are wider and legitimate, but that filtering process also brings in some bureaucratic considerations of one kind or another in connection with it. Especially on science questions, I have seen that work to the disadvantage of that process.
There are occasionally "yes minister" syndromes that begin to come into play here, if people understand my drift in terms of using a television analogy. So I am anxious to see the development of strategic planning reflecting as closely as possible the real needs of the parks and the real priorities that are laid out in the act, which your committee tries to defend in connection with it.
Is it a good or a bad thing to have the deputy ministers involved in this? It is a much more complex issue than whether it is good or bad. It is a process question. From the department's point of view, I can see that it is advisable. From the agency's point of view, it would be a weakening. I am not a member of the agency and never will be. That is my opinion in terms of trying to watch the way Parks works and the way in which the process goes through the levels of management from the individual parks levels, through the regional executive directors, on to Ottawa and up.
Senator Taylor: I can see your argument, that under the present system that the "yes minister" may take predominance and hurt policy planning. But this system that we are switching over to -- a system that you approve and the government approves -- envisages an agency. Now, whether we like it or not, from what I have heard to date, that agency will also be operating within budget constrictions or will be trying to balance income against what they must spend.
Under the new system, does the planning and imagination come from the bottom as much as it did under the old one? In other words, maybe you do need some feed from the top down because the bill might become overly cautious and overly hands-on managerial in its outlook, in order to try to make the budget look good. Am I wrong?
Mr. Page: In weighing the two, I have seen more pressure coming from the parks and the regions upwards than from Ottawa downwards. There is a managing function. There is a fiscal responsibility function that Ottawa must apply to the overall system. Whether it is an agency or department, I do not see a difference.
We have some enormous talent among Parks people today and we have an enormous number of Canadians who are anxious to try to support parks in various directions. My company does a variety of projects to help the ecology of Banff National Park. We supply the electricity to the park, and we have one facility within it. We are trying to contribute back. There is a whole series of ways in which the departmental processes have tended to slow down the development of some of those innovative processes in the past. That may be an unfair comment, but it is a comment coming from my own experience in looking at these things.
There are some essential ways in which you must be top down, especially in the fiscal area, but I am trying to see a structure that will allow more percolating up of idealism and other questions that are emerging at Parks.
Senator Cochrane: I am disappointed that we will not be hearing from some of the users of the parks so that we could get their views. Even when there are communities within the parks, we do not have anyone from them appearing before us.
Mr. Page: Is the Mayor of Banff not appearing?
The Chairman: That is more to deal with the specialty.
Senator Cochrane: Have you consulted with towns in and around national parks as to how they feel about this change in administration?
Mr. Page: Burt Dyck, who is Mayor of Canmore, is a friend. Burt has to face the fact that as we slow down the development of Banff, all we do is move it down the road to Canmore. The development pressures on Canmore are enormous right now.
On these questions, the park management plans, which are separate from the agency, are the critical issue. They have been developed at some length with some local consultation, but have I consulted with any of these people with regard to this? No. Were these people consulted during the Banff-Bow Valley Study and in our huge technical report on it? No, because it was not part of our mandate. I have no basis for coming back to you and saying yes, that anything I have said here today has any credibility with the people you mentioned. I have no basis for knowing that.
Senator Cochrane: I agree with your point about the seniors and students and funding. If user fees will be increased, fewer and fewer of these groups will be able to afford to visit and appreciate the things that we have in this country.
Mr. Page: I agree with that.
The Chairman: This morning, I raised with Tom Lee the experience that you had with the Banff-Bow Valley report. Those of us in the committee who had the opportunity to examine it and to meet with you as we did in Banff found it to be a very impressive model of involvement of stakeholder groups -- and very opposing stakeholder groups -- that came together and created this excellent report. I told him that I found the legislation to be wanting. It should be more specific as to the responsibilities of the agency in conducting input of a similar nature when they are dealing in terms of new management plans or amending management plans for any park across Canada. Mr. Lee and his officials referred me to a section in the National Parks Act, Section 51, which spoke in terms of the minister. I found it rather permissive, but basically the minister may or may not have that type of public involvement in the process of creating these plans.
Having lived in Alberta, you and Senator Taylor would certainly appreciate the controversies that have been going on for years in our parks, especially in Banff and Lake Louise, regarding development. We saw the minister stepping in on the town of Banff. What you did with this study in terms of bringing people together is really the process that should be followed when you deal with these controversial matters. The advisory group that you recommend may be the answer to my dilemma here. I find the legislation to be wanting because I think we should encourage that type of input. We have the model of your committee, which is the proof that it works. The government may not be as willing a participant as some might wish them to be. Nevertheless, it works.
Could you help me in explaining the work of the advisory committee, as you see it. How would it work with the minister, or with the CEO? I am a little unclear as to how that would work. I find it very interesting and very important.
Mr. Page: There are a number of other models like this that are already here in Ottawa. The Commissioner for Sustainable Development has an advisory council or a variety of similar advisory councils that meet several times a year, in order to review plans. There are means whereby, without giving the detail of the specific proposal, a series of options can be presented and discussed and considered in a multi-stakeholder process. This gives the CEO some insights into the way in which NGOs or business or others may be reacting to proposals. This idea of presenting alternatives in an advisory form is really very helpful from a management point of view.
I can take you back to the Banff-Bow Valley Study. Charlie Zinken, who was the Superintendent of Banff National Park, certainly indicated to me on a number of occasions that the detailed discussions we had at the Banff-Bow Valley Study were helpful to him in terms of understanding some of the nuances of his own planning within the parks. The proposals that they were bringing forward alerted him to potential problems that he had not anticipated, and also helped him to find consensus in ways that he had not expected.
When the Banff-Bow Valley Study, including all the four chairs from the business groups, supported a statement that was really the precautionary principle in our vision for Banff National Park, that was something that surprised Parks in connection with it. I am not trying to say that these kind of processes bring out the bad. They can also bring out the good in terms of showing ways forward.
If you get someone who spent 30 years doing something -- maybe a fisherman who has used aquatic ecosystems in fishing the Bow River -- the insights that that individual can bring to Parks in terms of fish habitat may be something way beyond what the scientific papers may show. Some interesting suggestions that Parks had not considered came out of our round table. But once they did, they said yes, this is good. This is a means of breaking through in innovative ways to deal with some of these problems.
If the public thinks that you are being transparent, honest and open, they are far more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to some issues. Our round table worked, but only because it was very clear right from the beginning that there was some output coming from it, which would be meaningful from a management point of view.
We guaranteed right from the beginning that the document that the round table would collectively produce would be a central part of our report. That broke down some of the cynicism. That gave a credibility to the process with regard to the end product.
When people must work together, they come to like each other. In the Banff-Bow Valley Study round table, we found that the national environmental group and the local environmental group had never talked to some of the people in the business community who were at the round table. Some of the business people at the round table did not even know that ecological integrity was in the National Parks Act. When the NGOs had to listen, as they did for a great period of time, to understand what the economic constraints were on operators running facilities in the national park, they had a new appreciation for some of the difficulties that Parks was facing in managing national parks.
So that sharing of knowledge is a humbling experience for us all, but it is an experience from which there can be some benefits, in the long term.
The Chairman: It seems that we are speaking at two levels, though. Your advisory committee is at a higher level. I am not sure that the transparency you refer to is as visible or as transparent at that level as at the other level, which you are at, with directly involved stakeholders. What would you think of legislation that would have your advisory committee, but that would also include a section requiring the new agency to conduct public hearings and involve stakeholders on any amendment to a management plan or the creation of a new management plan to put that right specifically in the legislation. What would your views be on that?
Mr. Page: I would support that. That would extend what I am after.
The Chairman: Would it not make the work of the new agency easier and more acceptable and less controversial if they were obliged to do it?
Mr. Page: That is my belief.
The Chairman: Dr. Page, we are indebted to you. Thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to come here. We very much appreciate your being with us. We will meet again tomorrow morning.
The committee continued in camera.