Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 11 - Evidence - Morning sitting
OTTAWA, Wednesday, October 7, 1998
[English]
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-29, to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence, met this day at 9:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the committee to order. Our first witness today is Mayor Ted Hart from the Town of Banff.
Welcome. Would you proceed with your presentation, please?
Mr. Ted Hart, Mayor, Town of Banff: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators and those present, thank you. It is nice to be here. I last met with this committee in Banff about 18 months ago during your fact-finding tour through the national parks, and Banff in particular, at the time of the Bow Valley study. To a degree, much of what we are discussing here today relates to that.
Honourable senators, let me begin by presenting my credentials.
In 1971, I obtained a Master's degree in Western Canadian history from the University of Alberta and the next year went to work at the Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies in Banff as an archivist. Since that date, I have been continuously in the employ of the museum, for a period of 16 years as a director of the museum, and more recently as the executive director of the Peter and Catharine Whyte Foundation, which operates the museum. In my almost 27 years with the museum, the main focus of my activities has been gathering, preserving, researching, organizing, and making available to the public the history and heritage of the Canadian Rockies. I have published eight books dealing with the history of Banff and Banff National Park. It has been said of me, by others, that I am one of the foremost experts active today on the history and culture of this area.
As well, I have been deeply involved in my community as a volunteer and elected politician for over 20 years. This has included service on the local school board and as chair of the Banff Community Society, the body that worked during the 1980s with the Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta to negotiate the incorporation agreement of 1990 that created the Town of Banff as the world's first incorporated municipality within a national park. From 1990 to 1992, I served as a councillor for the Town of Banff, and from 1995 to the present, I have served as mayor.
I can unequivocally state that these years have been interesting times, ones of great change for Banff and the Canadian parks system, and, I might add, a great education for me.
I believe that my background in parks history and in parks politics gives me a unique perspective from which to view the issue before you today, that is, Bill C-29, a bill to establish the Parks Canada Agency. I will start by making some general observations on the Canadian parks system today and the legislation before us, and then move on to more specific observations on proposals in the legislation.
Let me say up front that I believe there are some good points to the proposed agency status. These are mainly in the area of financing, where the legislation will provide the agency with a number of new financial authorities.
These include the two-year, operational rolling budget providing for an annual carry-over of funds, full retention of reinvestment authority for all revenues, and the establishment of a dedicated, non-lapsing account funded through appropriations, revenues from the sale of surplus properties, and from general donations. The commitment to a biennial forum, which will permit Canadians to share their views on programs and management direction, is also a very positive step. However, both objectives could have been accomplished easily by amending the existing legislation, without the creation of an agency -- a point to which I will now turn.
In essence, I am concerned about the creation of an agency, described in the background material as a "departmental corporation." I believe it is largely an experiment in our system of government, and I do not believe that the government should be experimenting with Canada's most treasured asset, the natural and human heritage of this country as represented in its national park system.
The idea that our park system can be run strictly as a business is anathema to me. The words in the proposed legislation, and its accompanying background documents, are all very positive and soothing, but they mask the underlying crisis that I believe is occurring in our national parks. This crisis is being created largely by a chronic underfunding of the resources necessary for the system to accomplish the lofty goals outlined in the proposed legislation, and I fear that agency status will make this problem worse rather than better.
The background document entitled "Benefits to Canadians in Establishing a Canadian Parks Agency" states in its opening paragraph that "the flexibilities and authorities provided by the legislation are designed to support the agency in delivering service within substantially reduced budgets." To me, that statement indicates that times are only going to get worse for our parks system.
Historically, parks have always been at the bottom of the food chain of government appropriations. Generations of dedicated administrators and parks employees have attempted to get by on the crumbs coming their way while trying to convince their political masters that there needs to be more and better resources made available for them to accomplish their goals.
During these years, Parks Canada and its predecessor branches have been part of a government department, and to a great degree have been batted around like a ping-pong ball, finding homes in recent history in Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Natural Resources, Environment Canada, and Heritage Canada. Despite this, they have at least been part of the departmental budgeting and reporting process, something that now appears to me to be changing with the agency status. The agency seems to be one more step removed from the sun and I fear that the necessary resources mentioned above for our parks to thrive will be more, rather than less, difficult to access.
The background information to the proposed legislation tries to give the impression that all will be just fine with respect to fiscal and human resource matters. There is an underlying attempt to convince the reader that if parks are allowed to keep the revenues they generate, there will be more money available for the creation of new parks and the operation of the old. Looking at the moneys that actually flow into the parks, I sincerely doubt this. The park in which I live is one of the few that actually generates any substantial amount of its operating budget.
One need look no further than the so-called "more flexible human regime" touted in the "Benefits to Canadians" document. It proudly states in its highlights section that "to carry out its functions Parks Canada now has approximately 5,000 employees, over one-third of whom work on a seasonal basis and over 90 per cent of which are located outside the National Capital Region." This section also reports that the agency will be responsible for operating 38 national parks, 131 national historic sites owned and operated by Parks Canada, 661 national historic sites owned and operated by third parties, seven historic canals, three marine conservation areas, 165 heritage railway stations, and 31 heritage rivers.
It will have responsibility for administering federal policy on 1,000 federal heritage buildings and administering and implementing the federal archeological policy. This means that there are approximately 3,000 full-time employees, of whom some 2,700 are outside Ottawa, to manage all of the above responsibilities. This does not engender pride in me. It makes me fearful that the job cannot be done with the human resources obviously stretched to the limit in this way.
I need look no further than my own home, Banff National Park, to know that my fear is well justified. Parks administration is in crisis after the continual rounds of downsizing and reconfiguring that have gone on over the past few years, indeed for more than a decade now.
Morale in the parks service is at an all-time low among the rank and file workers, at least those few who are left, and most are looking for a way to get out. They feel that they have neither the support of the upper echelons of the bureaucracy in Canadian Heritage nor the resources necessary to do their jobs.
I think it is extremely ironic that while Ms Copps and Mr. Mitchell tout the brave new world of Canadian parks, with its emphasis on ecosystem management and no net negative environmental impacts, they simply do not have the resources to do the old jobs, never mind the myriad of new ones.
Watching the warden service in Banff struggle with wildlife and ecosystem management problems, at the same time trying to provide public safety to upwards of 4 million visitors without the necessary manpower and other resources, is indeed painful. I know, from speaking with my contacts in other national parks, that this unconscionable situation exists at virtually all of the places mentioned in the inventory above.
Let me cite another example that is near and dear to my heart. In the Banff Community Plan and the Banff Park Management Plan, renewed emphasis has been put on the protection of Banff's built heritage. The town has created a corporation to take on this challenge -- the Banff Heritage Corporation -- providing it with funding and resources to make meaningful progress on some of the town's most important heritage buildings. Despite its responsibility for built heritage on parks lands, Parks Canada has done nothing of a tangible nature -- except to say that it may be able to provide vacant office space, of which it has plenty -- to further this initiative.
I cannot think of a more telling example than one of its own most valuable heritage resources, the park superintendent's residence, a beautiful log home built on the river in 1920 and one of Banff's most important buildings. It is simply rotting away, with no funds available to even halt its deterioration, much less restore it. This is, I believe, a national disgrace that occurs with other nationally important structures across the system. I see no hope of these matters being changed because of the agency status. Indeed, I believe the situation may become worse.
To turn to a more specific concern, you are undoubtedly aware that I and the council of the Town of Banff have just gone through a three-year battle with the Department of Canadian Heritage, and in particular Minister Copps, concerning the community plan and land-use bylaw for the Town of Banff. I have publicly stated that the process of the town's relationship with the federal government was deeply flawed and anti-democratic. While this is not the time or the place to argue the merits of a plan that would have reduced further development potential in Banff by two-thirds, I do want to comment on the process, which I fear will be perpetuated in the proposed legislation. Essentially, I believe that the proposed legislation gives the minister too much power without reference to the approval of Parliament.
The background document, "Benefits to Canadians," referred to earlier, states under the section entitled "Enhanced Accountability to Canadians" that "the minister will retain full power of direction over agency activities and the legislation provides for new or improved accountability mechanisms to Parliament."
While I can agree that there may be some new mechanisms, I am completely sceptical that they will be improved. Most of these initiatives are by way of reports of what has already been done, rather than consultation on what will be done which, I believe, should be approved by Parliament. On the contrary, the proposed legislation continues to perpetuate a system that just begs to be manipulated by the minister responsible without public accountability.
I refer here specifically to the clause that states that the management plans for both national parks and national historic sites will be tabled in Parliament. This happens now, but I believe the process should be changed. The minister makes all the decisions with her officials and incorporates them into the management plan -- which, of course, is the key document governing what takes place in each of our national parks -- and then presents the plan to Parliament as a fait accompli. There is no debate on the floor of the house, no bill to be passed, no chance for change. It is, as they say, a done deal.
Let me remind you of the recent consequences of such a system for the Town of Banff.
Historically, the Banff National Park Management Plan has been formulated by a process of public consultation over a period of time so that all points of view can be aired and suggestions for improvements in drafts can be made.
Until this June, the most recent version of the plan had evolved from the landmark Banff-Bow Valley study process, which was a comprehensive examination of the environmental integrity of the park that was carried out over a two-year period and had unprecedented public input. The new management plan that resulted from this was tabled in Parliament last fall and was hailed by everyone as a fine example of a process and a product that could lead to a great future for Banff National Park and, indeed, for other parks in the system.
In the meantime, the Town of Banff was working on its new community plan, as the park management plan foresaw, and consulting its citizens on the features of that plan. In this case, it appears in hindsight the minister did not like what she saw or, more accurately, was successfully lobbied to not like what she saw, but failed to be explicit about her concerns to council.
When the draft plan was completed and a plebiscite held in Banff that supported its growth aspects -- the two-thirds reduction mentioned previously -- the minister used the park management plan as a blunt instrument to achieve her political objectives. Without public consultation and without even informing the Town of Banff in advance, amendments to the park management plan were drafted in the form of a press release and were announced to a press conference in Ottawa on June 26 of this year. The changes in the plan included planned expropriation of commercial leases in the Town of Banff and the shrinking of the size of the town site by 17 per cent, concepts which, I reiterate, had not been brought forward for consideration or discussion by the public or even town council. Parliament was not even in session and, I believe, was not aware of these changes.
To my knowledge, the new Banff park management plan has not yet been tabled, although the surveys for the town boundary changes are underway and initiatives are being undertaken to extinguish leasehold interests.
This action, in my view, was clearly a misuse of a system that will be perpetuated -- perhaps even embellished -- with the new agency. While some of my environmental friends may say that the minister was acting appropriately and that what she did was well and good, I would advise them to think twice. Were the situation the reverse <#0107> if a different minister were to believe that the town site boundaries should be increased by 17 per cent, and were to simply write that into the park management plan without consultation, would they believe it was well and good? I do not think so, and therein lies the danger. Essentially, the whole future of our national parks system lies at the whim of the minister of the day and his or her particular philosophy. God help us!
I should like to make one other comment, and that is that the views expressed here are my personal views. They have not been put to me by the council of the Town of Banff, nor have they been approved by it.
The Deputy Chairman: Are you running again this fall?
Mr. Hart: No.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Hart, thank you for coming and expressing your serious concerns over this new piece of legislation. When we were in Banff, our chairman, Senator Ghitter, was there, but I am glad our deputy chairman Senator Taylor is here today. Senator Ghitter had to go back to Calgary to attend a funeral, but he would have liked to have been here.
I must ask you something that I believe I heard yesterday from Mr. Lee. I stand to be corrected, but the record will show that yesterday he said that the mayor said this new agency was a win-win idea.
Mr. Hart: Not recently, no.
Senator Cochrane: I think Mr. Lee said that yesterday. He said this was what the Mayor of Banff said.
Mr. Hart: I am surprised Mr. Lee said that, knowing I was coming to speak for myself.
Senator Cochrane: There was not another mayor. You have been in that position for the past number of years. I was surprised to hear you say that.
Mr. Hart: I did not say that; he said that I said it.
Senator Cochrane: Let me ask you about the funding for Banff. You said there are problems with the funding. Give me a rundown of the way Banff is funded.
Mr. Hart: The Town of Banff and all national parks have always been funded by appropriations through Parliament. It is the regular government budgeting system.
My particular feeling, from my study of the history of Banff and other parks, is that the ability to do the job over the last 100 years has always been very much constrained by the lack of funds. Given different times, different circumstances and different policies of governments over the years, that is not too surprising.
Over the last 20 years, however, there has been a new emphasis on understanding and appreciation of the environment and ecosystem management, combined with a huge increase in tourism, where almost 4 million people come to the park. With that in mind, it is surprising that we have seen a reduction in real terms of the moneys and the staff available to do the job on the ground. I am not talking about planning or head office; I am talking the person who has to do the job on the ground. Although it might not be in strict monetary terms, there has been a reduction in resources -- human and financial -- to do the job.
As I say in my presentation, I find it ironic that the people speaking for the new agency status and for Heritage Canada are talking about parks doing more. I fail to see that they are doing a good job. That is not because the people on the line and throughout the system are not trying. They just do not have the tools to do the job. That is why I am concerned that the agency status, to a degree, seems to be just one more in a line of about six reorganizations of Parks Canada that I can remember in the last dozen years. Whenever there is a crisis reorganization -- a panacea -- there is this belief that the agency will solve all of this through new financial aspects that will allow reinvestment or money generated in the parks to be returned to the parks. Parks cannot survive on the money that they generate themselves. It will be a help, indeed, but it will not solve the problems.
I am concerned that the agency will be more removed from the centre of power, rather than closer to it, and that it will be much easier for those who make financial decisions to forget about.
Senator Cochrane: I understand from your brief that you have contacted other people within different communities that have parks similar to yours. You say they found that there was the same understanding that the parks will deteriorate and we will not have enough money to build and grow on what we already have.
Mr. Hart: Yes, that is true. My job -- not as mayor, but as the director of the Whyte Museum -- places me in touch with people in the national parks system across Canada and beyond, as well as the IUCN. There is concern well beyond the Town of Banff about this matter. It is not even a concern about -- to use your own words -- being allowed to grow. At the present time, our concern is to maintain the status quo.
The expectation of Canadians, which I think Minister Copps and Secretary of State Mitchell have given to Canadians, is that there will be a lot of new things done in parks from an ecosystem-management point of view, a no-net-environmental-impact point of view, and from the point of view of a number of other environmental initiatives. I do not have any difficulty with those, but I do not see any way that the people who are already stressed to the limit will be able to accomplish these things. I think we set ourselves up for failure when we do that. Canadians are not expecting failure because of the rhetoric and the public attention that has been focused on Banff in particular, and, indeed, now on the whole park system. There is now an expectation that the resources will be there to do the things which the political masters say will be done. I do not see that.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Mr. Hart, I listened carefully as you listed your concerns. It appears that you are critical of the status quo and not convinced that the agency will change anything.
Mr. Hart: That is correct.
Senator Fitzpatrick: However, the bottom line I took from your comments is that there are not enough dollars to do the job that you think should be done. Is that your view?
Mr. Hart: I would say that is one of the fundamental points I have been making. The other fundamental point I am making is that Parks Canada has been tampered with, from a management or organizational point of view, to a huge extent over the last dozen years. It seems to me that establishing the agency is just making it a guinea pig once again, with one more reorganization, one more way of doing business, as they call it. It has already gone through, as I say, half a dozen of these types of management changes. My view is that it is the wrong thing with which to experiment.
Senator Fitzpatrick: But you have said that the status quo is not acceptable. My read of the agency is that it will provide for more efficiency and a new thrust and, perhaps, a spirit within an organization that is dedicated to working toward some of the same objectives that you are talking about, to try to achieve movement from the status quo; but I take it you do not think that it is worth trying.
Mr. Hart: I am not saying that it is not worth trying. What I am saying is that if the agency is no more than a sham to do what has not been done in the past, or has been done too much, in terms of reorganizations, then I am concerned about it. Like you, I read all of the pabulum that we are fed. People writing background documents on a piece of proposed legislation do not sit down and write out why this is not a good idea. They feed you all of the good stuff and the words are meant to allay your concerns. The words are meant to make it sound like this is, as I call it, the panacea for all of the problems that we have faced in the past. The documents and this file are no different from many that I have read before.
What I am saying is that the Banff National Park and the Canadian parks system, I believe, are in a crisis situation and I do not think that the agency will help solve that problem.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the comment that I have had discussions with the officials who are involved in this, and I do feel that there is a real dedication toward some of the same objectives that are being expressed by Mr. Hart. I do not feel that I have been overwhelmed with propaganda on it. I want to leave that with you, Mr. Hart. I think there is a very sincere and dedicated attitude within the bureaucracy to achieve some of the same things that you are concerned about.
The Deputy Chairman: One of the impressions I have received from some of the other submissions is that this method of reinvesting the money back into the parks worked to the advantage of parks like Banff and to the disadvantage of more remote areas or parks that do not have the vast volume of business or vast volume of visitors. In other words, it is exactly the opposite of what you are saying: The system, if it is slanted at all, is slanted toward helping the high-volume, high-tourist, money-generating parks such as the one in which you live. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Hart: Only to the extent that I do not know enough about the plans to reinvest the earned dollars. My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that the moneys taken in are made available to the system, not necessarily to the park where they are taken in. Banff National Park serves, particularly in its eastern boundary, as the gateway to the four mountain national parks. It is the major point of access. I feel that it would be unfair for the parks system, which is what I am really talking about here, to say, "Well, just because the people who come to Yoho or Kootenay happen to come to Banff, that is where the money stays," because it is collected at the gate essentially.
The Deputy Chairman: That leads to another problem. As you know, Banff is one of the few parks we have in Canada that may be overused, at least portions of it. If the parks that are generating funds become a sacred cow in the system, there might be a tendency to overuse them. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Hart: I think I agree with you, Senator Taylor. Certainly, the issue of park fees is one that we deal with on a daily basis with the reactions of people coming to the park. People assume, for example, that parking should be free in the Town of Banff because they paid at the gate. They make no distinction in their mind, just as we probably do not when we travel to other places, about who is taking the money out of their pocket.
Certainly, the increase in gate fees has caused a lot of concern in a number of different areas, particularly from the point of view of equal access to our Canadian parks system. If we are looking at a system with an agency, I agree that it is an improvement to be able to utilize these funds in the parks themselves. However, if this becomes the main way of raising funds to support the parks system, then we are headed to hell in a handcart because you would have to increase the gate fees to such an extent that you would essentially be limiting the parks to wealthy international tourists. The run of the mill Canadian could not afford or would not want to go to the parks because of the charges that would be levied.
While on the surface it appears to be something that is positive, I think we have to be careful that it is not turned into the main way of trying to generate the funds to support a park or a system.
Senator Kenny: I apologize for being late, Mr. Hart. The plane arrived late and I arrived late with it.
I read your submission and I have been listening to the exchange. With regard to the park fees, I agree that you do not want to price them beyond the reach of ordinary Canadians. On the other hand, there might be more effort made to collect them.
My impression is that a huge number of people take the express lane, going right through, and that there is very little effort made to ensure that folks have a sticker on their car when they are in Banff.
I do not know whether you share that view. I have discussed it with a couple of superintendents and their position was basically that they did not wish to use person years to collect money at the gate that will just go to Ottawa, that they would rather use those PYs as interpreters or wardens.
Under the proposed legislation, will there not be a greater incentive to collect the fees? My guess would be that half the people in your park in particular are ignoring the fee. That is not a scientific sample; that is just from personal observation on various trips. I have raised this with both Dave Day and Charlie Zinkan and have received pretty much the same answer from each superintendent over a decade.
Mr. Hart: They have probably inculcated me with the same point of view. I am not sure that mine will vary much. I will not argue that from a dollars and cents point of view, it would be more suitable to try to collect these fees. However, you must understand that Banff is on the Trans-Canada Highway. We do not collect fees from people who are just passing through the park, because they are on the Trans-Canada Highway. The regulations do not allow parks to do that.
Senator Kenny: That is correct. My test was conducted more in parking lots where vehicles are supposed to have a sticker showing. I would venture to say that, if we went there today, 30 per cent to 40 per cent would not have those stickers.
Mr. Hart: That is possibly true. The regulations also state that anyone passing through the park is allowed, without a sticker, to stop for a meal, to purchase gasoline, et cetera. Therefore, it is very difficult for Parks Canada to enforce the gate fees in the Town of Banff. They do the enforcement on the outlying roads. Most of the enforcement is done in the ski areas because they are on dedicated access roads for a dedicated use. The few people that I have available to perform that function normally do it in those areas. I have run across a number of enforcement activities over the last couple of years that I had not previously seen. I would not argue that it may be tightened up even more.
Senator Kenny: If Banff came to be overcrowded, which would be your choice: a lottery system or fees?
Mr. Hart: I am of the opinion that in the longer run, through a very selective approach, there must be limitations on visitation. I am not talking about stopping the next car at the gate when you reach a certain number. That would be like Ms Copps imposing her growth limits on Banff and saying that it will not get bigger than a set number of people. I guess that when we reach the limit we will take the next baby down to Ottawa and leave it on her doorstep.
I am talking about the model used in the Pacific Rim where you impose quotas on particularly sensitive areas. That, indeed, is occurring this year. Valley of the Larches is closed this year, which I think is a very good step. I believe they started this year, or will start next year, with quotas on going to Skokie.
Senator Kenny: So currently you cannot go over Sentinel Pass.
Mr. Hart: I am not sure whether you can go to Sentinel Pass. It is either totally closed or heavily restricted in the Valley of the Larches.
Senator Kenny: It is pretty hard to get to Sentinel Pass if you do not go through Larch Valley.
Mr. Hart: That is right. My understanding is that it is closed at the present time. Whether it is closed because of grizzly bear activity or human use activity, the closure serves the same purpose. It is an overused area. Sometimes Parks Canada uses wildlife activity to achieve goals which they do not have other means of achieving.
Senator Kenny: You said you do not believe that individual parks would keep their revenues, that the revenues would go centrally.
Mr. Hart: No, system-wide.
Senator Kenny: That seems to me to be centrally. If that is the case, it strikes me as being a bit of a disincentive to managers to manage well. Part of the deal seemed to be that you would motivate, for example, the superintendent of Banff, by saying that if he could run the facility more efficiently, he could keep some of the money saved.
I think it would be worth determining, Chairman, when the minister appears here, whether all the funds are going centrally or whether parks that do generate efficiencies benefit from them.
Mr. Hart: Senator, I do not purport to be an expert on how the moneys will be apportioned because I am not totally familiar with that. Banff is no longer run as an individual park. The superintendent is a field unit supervisor now. Everyone has broader responsibilities. It is hard to keep track of the players without a program because they reorganize so frequently.
Certainly, the four mountain parks, in particular Kootenay, Yoho, and Banff, tend to be looked at as a unit. I think the financial benefits will flow unit-wide, if not totally centrally.
Senator Kenny: You made specific reference in your brief to the superintendent's accommodations and how they are deteriorating. I have heard superintendents say that if they had their way, they would sell them, that they have better uses for the revenue from those assets than for the facility.
Mr. Hart: I know that Charlie Zinkan pays an incredible rent.
Senator Kenny: Actually, it was a predecessor of Charlie.
Mr. Hart: We are talking about our national heritage here. I am not talking about who lives in it. It happens to be the superintendent's house. I would have the same point of view if I lived in the house. It is a national historic building and it is being neglected.
I use that only as an example of what happened in Banff, where Parks Canada has become, by legislation, responsible for heritage resources within the entire park. The Town of Banff was created and has taken responsibility. This is one of my particular areas of interest and I would have to say that we have gone a long way to try to protect some of the heritage resources of the town.
Essentially, that is still a Parks Canada responsibility, and we have, to a degree, as part of incorporation, taken on that job. The Town of Banff is doing much more for heritage preservation in national parks than are the national parks, and I think that is wrong. I think they should at least be taking care of their own buildings, of which the superintendent's residence is a prime example, and should be doing more in built heritage on a broader basis.
Again, I use that as an example of where the job is not being done now and I see no hope that, because of the creation of an agency, the job will be done.
Senator Kenny: My last question relates to the fact that this committee has a dilemma. There is a chronic underfunding of the parks system. New ministers seem to want to notch their belt with new parks, which appears to be a bragging right of sorts. "When I was minister, I created this many parks." The parks come, but the resources do not seem to come with them.
At the same time, there is a race in the sense that if we do not preserve significant parts of the country now, it will be too late a couple of decades from now. Where do you stand on this dilemma?
Mr. Hart: Probably fairly close to you, senator. I understand the need for protection of all of the ecozones in the country and of national historic sites, but I think it is shortsighted to continue to add to the system when there is chronic "underfunding," to use your word, senator. If someone did that in business, for example, we would say he or she was an idiot.
Suppose someone owned a chain of 10 restaurants that, because of capital-flow, were having difficulty producing a facility that could meet the needs of the people using it. Suppose that company went out and bought two new pieces of land on which to build restaurants. Let us use that example, because when we create a park, we have to create some infrastructure with it. If we did that in the business world, people would look at us and say, "You are nuts." At very best they might say, "Boy, that was a great opportunity and you could not resist it. Maybe you will get your act together, but in the meantime I am selling my shares." That would be my point of view.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Hart, I realize that you are the Mayor of Banff, but with your interests in the park and its stability, I wonder if you had an opportunity to speak with those employees of PSAC, and what their views were about the creation of this agency and the changes that will take place. What have they been saying?
Mr. Hart: PSAC members, to a large degree, have been on the defensive because of the botched initiative of the parks to contract out, particularly in our park where it did not look like there would be many PSAC members left. They are not saying a lot at the present time. I do not know what they are saying through their representatives at the national level.
I am talking about the man operating the snow plow. That man was told two years or so ago that he could bid for his job as a private contractor if he wished. If he did not want to bid for it, they would give it to one of the major snow plow contractors.
They fought that for a couple of years, and Parks Canada insisted that this was the way of the future. They wanted to contract everything out because they believed it would be more efficient and cost effective. They spent a good deal of their time trying to sell that to people. They said that this would be the wave of the future, that parks would be more entrepreneurial, and that this is the way entrepreneurs do the job.
If you look around Banff today, that same snow plow driver will be tuning up his snow plow as we speak and will be back on the road, probably unexpectedly to him, because this whole initiative failed. This new management style went down the drain because when somebody actually sat down and crunched the numbers, they found it would be more expensive rather than less expensive to actually contract out the services. You do not hear very much about that any more.
Many people who worked in the parks system left the public service because of this initiative and where it appeared to be leading. They did not want to start a company of two people so that they could be interpreters in Banff National Park, and we lost a lot of good people. The people who are still there are still happy to have their jobs. As long as the paycheques keep coming, I am not sure that they care whether it comes from an agency or from Parks Canada as it is currently structured.
I do not think there is any organized lobby one way or the other with respect to the line workers in PSAC.
Senator Cochrane: Do you think this new agency will start the ball rolling again in regards to contracting out?
Mr. Hart: God only knows. It is only one of so many different initiatives and reorganizations that Parks Canada has gone through in the last decade, and this issue could certainly come up again. If they figure they can save a dollar by doing it, I guess they will look at it again. The agency legislation seems to guarantee that no one will lose a job as a result of the creation of the agency, so I do not think so.
Senator Cochrane: I do not think that is for a long period of time.
Mr. Hart: I guess everyone who had a job with Parks Canada will have a job with the agency. Whether they have it a year from now is probably, as you are indicating, a different matter.
The Deputy Chairman: In your brief you mention the terms "democracy" and "anti-democratic" a number of times, Mr. Hart. You seem to be saying that if the will of the citizens of Banff is frustrated, this is anti-democratic. It may well be so in a lot of places, but in a case where a town is in a national park or a national treasure, is the input of the public of Canada, through the medium of its present government, as strong or even stronger than that of those who are living within the park? I am not suggesting you are squatters living on the public purse. However, is there not a perception that the democratic rights, or the right to develop, or the right to do what you want with property within Banff should not be equal to the rights you would have in Toronto, Montreal or Calgary?
Mr. Hart: There are two things I would like to say about that, senator.
The process under which the Town of Banff was incorporated identifies the rights of the citizens of Banff and specifies in which areas those rights exist and do not exist. That is a federal-provincial agreement, and that is the charter or the constitution of the town, as we call it. I would look to it for guidance.
When I do look to it for guidance, the underlying theme of the incorporation agreement is that there are three levels of government, although the Town of Banff did not exist when it was signed. Hence, it had to be signed by the province and the federal government. That really lays out a cooperative process to make a municipal situation work in a park setting. It was seen to be a benefit to do so by all concerned at that time. I am referring in my comments, in part, to the fact that the federal government has not lived up to the spirit of that agreement, which is meant to be a cooperative agreement with all parties trying to work out problems.
In our recent experience, the Town of Banff was left to do what the agreement said it would do, but the federal government did not cooperate. It was not a willing party to finding solutions. It sat there like a judge and jury and said, "You go out and do what you have to do, and then we will tell you whether we like it." Certainly, I feel that the spirit of the democratic process, as outlined in the incorporation agreement, was missing.
On a broader perspective, you are assuming that I am only talking as the Mayor of Banff about what happened to the people of Banff. My remarks are meant to go beyond that and to talk about the process of a park management plan and about the people of whom you speak, that is, all Canadians, who indeed had no input into the latest amendments to the park management plan. They had no more input than did the Town of Banff. The Canadian public were not asked what they thought of the proposed amendments. Town council and the citizens of Banff were not asked what they thought of the proposed amendments.
Traditionally, these types of amendments are put out for public consultation and discussion over a period of time; they are modified or not modified, and then included in the park management plan. The situation here was that no one knew these changes were about to take place. We came here on June 26 and met with Mr. Lee who said, "We are going to change the park management plan, and here are the changes we will announce in the press release tomorrow." That is exactly what they did. I think that stinks. It is not the right process for the citizens of Banff. Nor is it the right process for all Canadians who, as you describe, have a stake in this.
The Deputy Chairman: The proposed agency in the bill we have before us claims that this will be better in the future because every two years there will be input right to the political level, and then every five years there will be a review. Therefore, that input will now be statutory and not in regulations as it is now. I admit Banff will never get what it wants. I do not know if the public of Canada and the rights of Banff town site are synonymous. I think there will always be that conflict. There will always be one more hamburger stand. If the first one is making money, the second one will make even more. That type of thinking will be there. You will always have a conflict. This bill provides a means to solve that conflict. You are on the side of pro-development and the people of Canada are on the side of pristine glory.
Have you looked through the dispute solving mechanisms in terms of the way the agency will work?
Mr. Hart: First, I think the way people who live in Banff think and the way the rest of Canadians think is much closer together than you have characterized it. The people of Banff are not there because they want to build one more hamburger stand. They are there because they love the surroundings. They love the mountains and the parks. Many of them want to dedicate their lives to living, working and working for the parks.
I do not see your initial point about the checks and balances, or the system being better with the agency. I do not see anything that changes fundamentally what happens now. Yes, there are more reports; but the fact of the matter is that on June 26 the minister unilaterally and without consultation changed the park management plan. To me, that was not right. It did not take into account the rights of Canadians or the rights of Banffites, or Banffites as Canadians, and I do not see anything in the agency status that will change that.
Senator Buchanan: As I said yesterday, I love Banff. I have been there a few times, but you should come to the Cape Breton Highlands National Park.
Mr. Hart: I have and it is wonderful.
Senator Buchanan: Basically, we have two big national parks in our province. Every year there has been an increase in the number of tourists coming to those parks. The concern we have with this bill is whether that will continue, whether services will continue and be enhanced or whether people will be laid off. Of course, if that happens then we could have a reduction in the number of tourists who come, because the parks will not be as they had been. I do not think that will happen, and I hope it does not. However, we have had an increase every year.
Has Banff National Park had an increase in the number of visitors year after year? Do you foresee that it will continue?
Mr. Hart: It is difficult to say, because Parks Canada decided to stop counting about a year ago. They do not keep statistics any more, which is very strange to me.
Senator Buchanan: That is strange.
Mr. Hart: They stopped keeping the gate statistics for some reason.
It depends on what is happening in the world. Obviously, Banff is one of two or three international tourist destinations in Canada. It will depend on what happens with the market. It will depend on what happens in the province of Alberta, which is growing rapidly. Calgary is probably adding 30,000 people per year. Many of those people move to Calgary because of the proximity to the parks and the opportunity to use them. I would think that, yes, it will continue to grow.
Part of my concern is that I see nothing regarding the park system itself, nor the tourism infrastructure which is already growing and will continue to grow exponentially just outside the park. That does not prevent people from going to the park. In fact, it allows more people to come to the park. The Town of Canmore will hit a population of 10,000 people. It has been the fastest growing town in Alberta for the last several years, and will be 30,000 people within a dozen years.
That all increases the day use of the park. The fact that the Town of Banff is limited in its growth, as it should be, really means nothing in terms of the number of people who will actually use the park. Like you, I see that there will be more people using the park, unless there is some artificial restriction put on it.
My biggest concern is that Parks Canada now and under the new agency does not have the horses to handle protecting the environment, managing the people and ensuring public safety. That is why I think the agency status is a bit of a smokescreen.
Senator Buchanan: One thing that we have noted in Cape Breton Highlands National Park, and perhaps even more so in Kejimkujik, is that there is an increasing number of Nova Scotians who visit these parks. Do you find that there is a large percentage of people from Alberta visiting Banff?
Mr. Hart: There is, although they have been deterred to some degree by the increase in the gate fees. The increase in gate fees became a controversial thing in Alberta. People felt that they were being denied access to "their" parks. The provincial government of Alberta, in particular Peter Lougheed, created a number of parks in Kananaskis country. This is a major parks system on the borders of the national parks to which there is no entrance fee. To some degree, the people who visit the parks in the same ecosystems, the same mountains as it were, tend now to use that park more than they used Banff in the past. That tends to be a Calgary attitude. I would say that it is not really an issue in the rest of Alberta. The fact that Calgary is growing so much will probably overcome the old hardliners who do not think they should have to pay anything to visit "their" park.
Albertans are still the main users of Banff National Park and I do not foresee that changing.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hart.
Senators, from the Canadian Nature Federation we have Kevin McNamee, Wildlands Campaign Director, and from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society we have Mary Granskou.
Please proceed, Mr. McNamee.
Mr. Kevin McNamee, Wildlands Campaign Director, Canadian Nature Federation: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to address this committee from this side of the table on national parks issues, and specifically Bill C-29.
The Canadian Nature Federation has supported the federal government's proposal to make Parks Canada a separate service agency since the idea was first announced in the Minister of Finance's budget in March 1996. However, it is our conclusion that Bill C-29 has several flaws and, for that reason, we cannot give it our full support.
This is our sixth submission to the federal government on this issue. We have been involved for two and one-half years in trying to strengthen this agency. While we would like to see this issue put to rest and the bill passed, we nevertheless want to take this opportunity to suggest some changes to the bill itself or, in the alternative, we have some suggestions for your report to the House of Commons.
By way of background, the Canadian Nature Federation has been in existence since 1971. We are a national conservation group with over 40,000 members and supporters across Canada. We have programs that focus on marine conservation and bird conservation. The program that I run, the wildlands program, is focused on advocating the establishment of new national parks and their better protection.
I have been a parks advocate for the last 15 years. I have also served as a consultant on a number of occasions in the past, including to this committee. As was mentioned yesterday, I am a big user of national parks. I have been to 26 of the 38 of them. I have written a book entitled The National Parks of Canada, which is a celebration of the tremendous beauty and landscapes that we have protected in the past 115 years in what is undoubtedly the world's best national parks system.
As the committee examines this bill, it is critical that it be reviewed in the context of some of the challenges that face our national parks system. First, we need to add 15 new national parks to the system. Wilderness protections are increasingly foreclosed as Parks Canada is restricted from taking action. We do not have the luxury of dealing with just the 38 national parks. We need to add more because these landscapes are disappearing.
There are a growing number of internal and external threats to the ecological integrity of national parks caused by humans. Park visitors and tourism activities are the source of the most reported significant ecological impact on Canada's national parks. Logging, mining, and agricultural activities outside national park boundaries are causing significant, negative human impacts on park ecosystems.
The need for a modern and robust Parks Canada Agency, focused on conservation, is underscored by this summer's most recent state-of-the-parks report. It notes -- and I emphasize -- that between 1992 and 1997, over one-third of Canada's 38 national parks observed that the impact of human activities on national park ecosystems has become worse. In five years, scientists have measured a deterioration in one-third of our national parks.
Therefore, in Bill C-29 we welcome a number of things.
First, the direction to the agency to enforce the National Parks Act, implement parks policy and negotiate new national parks. Second, the creation of a new parks and historic sites account. Third, a number of new accountability mechanisms. Fourth, acknowledgement that it is in the national interest to manage visitor use and tourism in national parks.
This committee obviously does not want to stall this bill, but I would like, for the record, to suggest a number of changes to it.
First, adding a statement of purpose. We believe it essential that there be a clear statement of purpose for the agency within the main body of the act. After 87 years, it is time for the world's first national park agency to have an explicit legislative mandate. In our brief, we have suggested that specific wording for such a mandate be included in the act.
Second, we believe that the preamble should be turned into a core mandate by incorporating it into the act. There is a need for this for a number of reasons. First, to give the park agency some teeth. I do not think it is enough to simply pass legislation saying that Parks Canada should implement the already existing legislation. This bill should go further.
I would point out to the committee that eight of Canada's 38 national parks, or 20 per cent of the national parks system, are outside the National Parks Act. Parks such as Gros Morne, Pukaskwa, Pacific Rim and Grasslands -- the latter two being parks that some members visited -- are not under the National Parks Act. Hence, it is important that Parks Canada have a legislative mandate to protect such areas.
Furthermore, when Parliament looks back and the public looks back on this agency in five years, it is important that there be some performance measures -- some bench-marks -- against which to measure how successful this agency has been. I think some of the things in the preamble are just such bench-marks.
Thus, we recommend that clauses (b) to (m) in the preamble become the explicit core mandate of the agency and be specifically stated within the body of Bill C-29. Alternatively, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society suggested a simple amendment before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that you may want to consider.
My last point on this issue is that these changes were suggested to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and they were largely rejected. They were rejected because Parks Canada officials told the committee that "the mandate of the agency is derived from the acts it administers," and that "this is not an act to rejig the mandates, or, in a legislative manner, try to reinforce the mandate of the National Parks Act."
However, I would like to point out to this Senate committee that when the federal government launched its public consultation program in 1996 on this new agency, it stated that the creation of a new Parks Canada agency was an opportunity to reinforce Parks Canada's raison d'être. Again, in 1997 the federal government informed the public that "the legislation creating the agency will support and, where possible, strengthen the existing mandate." Yet, when Canadians recommend changes to the agency legislation that are in the spirit of this 1996 and 1997 public consultation program, we are told that we are confused over the purpose of the agency legislation. The Canadian Nature Federation takes strong objection to being told it was confused about the purpose behind the creation of this agency, when in fact we simply took the government up on its invitation.
Our third point is about protecting park ecosystems beyond boundaries. When The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, The Environment and Natural Resources travelled to Waterton Lakes and Grasslands national parks in 1994, according to your report, it "got the clear message that in order for a protected area not just to survive, but to thrive, the cooperation of neighbouring landowners is essential."
You heard this message in Pacific Rim National Park and in Kejimkujik National Park. In the latter, the committee was told that one of the challenges facing parks is "improving relationships with adjacent landowners, given the importance of surrounding habitat to the ecological survival of the park."
Given this committee's past experience, our suggestion is that in the preamble there be a statement that it would be in the national interest:
(n) to effect the conservation of ecosystems and natural areas that extend beyond national park boundaries by working in cooperation with adjacent landowners, and being involved in research, environmental assessment and planning processes within the region.
This is not to extend the legislative authority beyond the national park boundaries. The purpose here is to send a clear signal to Parks Canada staff that Parliament deems it to be in the national interest for them to attempt to work beyond national park boundaries in a cooperative fashion with their neighbours to protect the ecosystems that sustain both human and wildlife species.
This is not to suggest that Parks Canada does not do this, but we have learned on a number of occasions that Parks Canada staff have not participated in important environmental assessment and planning programs that have gone on outside national park boundaries. I think it is important that a signal be sent to staff.
Our fourth point is about establishing a public advisory committee. I would like to echo the very strong recommendation made to this committee yesterday by Dr. Robert Page about the need for a national committee. We are not seeking something where we would just sit and give the minister advice; we need a two-way dialogue. I suggest that some of the misunderstandings about the agency, about the privatization of parks and about contracts that played out in the media could have been avoided if there had been some two-way dialogue.
We have suggested either establishing a park advisory council, or if the Secretary of State and the current ADM of Parks Canada are so thoroughly against the idea, do not deny a future minister the power to establish one. As Heritage Canada suggested in its presentation, simply put the power to establish an advisory council at some future date in the bill.
My last major point is on financial provisions with respect to the new parks fund. We welcome this fund. It is an excellent idea. As the government said, the flexible nature of this fund will allow Parks Canada to take advantage of unanticipated opportunities to purchase land for Canada's national parks. This is excellent. This is very much in accordance with the entrepreneurial spirit that this committee recommended in its report called "Protecting Parks and Places."
However, Bill C-25 effectively mutes this flexibility by giving Treasury Board a role in approving or rejecting payments from the account. For example, clause 21(3) states that funds cannot be paid out of the account unless they are in accordance with a corporate plan approved by Treasury Board. Under clause 22(2) payments can only be authorized in accordance with the terms and conditions set out by Treasury Board. Finally, clause 33(4) is very clear:
The Agency shall not carry out any activity in a manner that is inconsistent with its corporate plan as approved by Treasury Board.
We think that his takes away the promised flexibility from this fund. If, for example, a property in a proposed national park is for sale and that park is not listed in the corporate plan, this would suggest that moneys cannot be used to purchase this land. This has happened in the past.
Just before the federal and provincial governments struck an agreement to establish Bruce Peninsula National Park, a very critical piece of land came up for sale. Treasury Board vetoed the purchase of that land because there was no agreement in place. A private owner from the United States purchased the land. It was lost to the national park, and I would suggest that if it ever comes up for sale it will cost two, three or four times as much. This is not flexibility.
Indeed, when it came to the Empire Valley Ranch, which was the core of the proposed Turn Creek National Park in British Columbia, Parks Canada did not act to buy it in part because they knew Treasury Board guidelines would prohibit them from buying it.
We have two suggestions. First, either change clauses 21(3) and 22(2) and eliminate clause 33(4) so that the role of Treasury Board is minimized or eliminated when it comes to buying land. Alternatively, this committee could recommend in its report to the House of Commons that the terms and conditions for the operation of the fund as defined in clause 22(2) clearly permit the acquisition of natural areas for proposed national parks in instances where there is no federal provincial national park agreement.
Second, we also suggest that there be a mandatory five-year review of the agency by Parliament.
We have expressed the same view as Dr. Page with respect to eliminating the role of the deputy minister as it relates to parks.
I would conclude by saying that Canada has benefited from the foresight and the dedication of generations of committed Canadians, politicians and civil servants in the building of a national parks system that serves as a model to the rest of the world. We want to ensure that, as the torch is passed to the new Parks Canada agency, it is clear to all that the public policy commitment to the ideas and values that are driving this system continue unabated and unaltered and, indeed, strengthened.
I thank you for your time. If I can answer any questions after Ms Granskou's presentation, I would be pleased to do so.
Ms Mary Granskou, Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: I would start by giving you a brief background on the Canadians Parks and Wilderness Society. The society was founded in 1963 as Canada's public voice on wilderness issues. In fact, the minister of the day, the Honourable Alvin Hamilton, was calling for a public organization to stand up for issues related, in particular, to our national parks system. Thus, we are very tied to the legislative and national parks agenda across the country as we have been since our society was founded.
The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society has 10,000 members across the country. We are very much a volunteer-based organization with 10 chapters across the country. We have worked vigorously on numerous issues. One of the leading issues over the past 25 years for us has been improving the management of Banff National Park and, indeed, other national parks in Canada.
Although I am not here to make a presentation on the Banff issue this morning, given the discussion earlier, if you would like to explore that with either myself or Mr. McNamee, we will be happy to answer any questions.
Our organization called for the first policy for Parks Canada's operations in Canada. We have been involved in every major policy revision since. We were very involved when Kevin McNamee was with our organization in the late 1980s in revisions to the National Parks Act. We have taken great interest in this particular bill since it was first proposed.
Our organization supports this legislation. I can tell you that there was a great deal of discussion among our board on it. A special committee was established to review the legislation as it was shepherded through the House of Commons. We decided, though, that there were enough substantive changes made during the house review of this legislation that we do support it.
All the improvements that we would have liked to see, such as a number that were mentioned by Kevin McNamee, were not made during the house process. However, we still support the passage of this bill without changes. We are very concerned that Parks Canada be allowed to focus on its core business. We would like to see the agency up and running because Parks Canada has some very pressing issues it must deal with across the country.
In terms of the legislative agenda, we hope that Parliament will give priority to the tremendously important amendments that will be coming forward to the National Parks Act, as well as to the marine conservation legislation.
I should like to outline a few areas of concern relating to the legislation. One area of concern is with the preamble. As Kevin McNamee has outlined, initially, we had called for the preamble to be given legal weight. That would have significantly strengthened the preamble, many of the clauses of which we feel are very strong. It is the view of our organization, and we have been involved in a number of issues in the courts, that giving a preamble legal weight from the outset is much preferred. We do not prefer the route of having to clarify the legislative weight of a preamble in the courts, which seems to be the trend.
Changes were made to the preamble, one of which we would like to highlight for you. When the bill was originally introduced, it did not include a reference to Canada's aboriginal peoples in the preamble. We felt that was a serious omission. It has been addressed. Although it is not as strong as it could be, it is now included in the bill.
We also support the proposal put forward by the Canadian Nature Federation. It involves the addition of a clause on visitor use and upholding ecological and commemorative integrity.
Both Mr. McNamee and Mr. Hart referred to public consultation. In the initial round of committee hearings in the House of Commons, we were advocating that there be an advisory committee. It is our view that there is significant expertise among public conservation organizations, tourism organizations, and others, that can be offered to help to cut off issues at the pass, so to speak. We vigorously advocated that view directly to Minister Copps and Mr. Mitchell. We are pleased that there was a move to address, in part, the need for improved public consultation in the bill through the addition of a biennial round table. However, it does not go as far as we had hoped it would.
As an addendum to that, the historic sites side of Parks Canada's operations has had a board in place since the early 1900s. Therefore, we certainly felt that we were on solid ground in requesting an advisory committee, or a board, on the parks side.
The other issue that I would like to flag for you is accountability to policy. We are pleased to see an accountability to policy provision in clause 6 of the bill. We believe though, that it could have been much improved had it been made more explicit, in particular, by listing Parks Canada's current operational policy in the schedule to the bill. We believe that the current policy under which Parks Canada operates is excellent. As many of you are aware, the implementation of policy is the area that causes problems.
I should like to highlight two other areas. One deals with the security of public funding and the other with the upholding of good science.
With regard to public funding, we and others had promoted a minimum percentage of annual appropriations to Parks Canada, which has suffered tremendous cuts to its budget amounting to 25 per cent. We believe that Canadians expect our national parks system to be funded from the public purse. After all, they are national, natural treasures. We were not successful in achieving that goal. However, it is certainly an issue that I would raise with you today because the financing of our national parks system will not get any easier.
I should like to refer back to an historical reference. In the early days of the establishment of Parks Canada as the first national park service in the world, J.B. Harkin, the first commissioner of the national parks system, was able to secure significant funding during the depression. If funds could be found during the Great Depression to make sure that our national parks system is managed for all Canadians, then I certainly hope that funds can be found now. There are many of us across the country who feel that public funding for our national parks system needs to be upheld.
The final area is upholding good science -- good, credible science. The promotion of credible science, and the freedom for our agency people to advocate their views in a responsible and professional manner, are fundamental to good decision-making. In recent years, we have seen this particularly in dealing with very sensitive issues of ecological integrity in very high profile cases around Banff and elsewhere, in recent years. We had asked for an amendment to clause 13 to make it explicitly clear that agency personnel will not be reprimanded for promoting the results of their scientific inquiries, and that was not heeded.
I just wanted to give you a sense of some of the residual concerns our organization has about the proposed legislation. I want to underscore that we do support it. There were a number of substantive changes that were made. It is not perfect, but we would like to see Parks Canada implement this bill and get down to the important decisions at hand on the myriad of fundamental issues facing our national parks system.
Senator Kenny: You touched on an issue about which I questioned the previous witness. I do not know if you were in the room at the time. It is the conundrum of underfunding of parks versus acquiring new land. You appear to have come down pretty firmly on the side of capturing that land now, notwithstanding the fact that it will stretch the thin resources more.
Mr. McNamee: That is correct. First, I will just offer an historical perspective. When Waterton Lakes National Park was first suggested in 1893 as a national park, civil servants at the time said, "Well, we already have Banff and Yoho and Glacier. What is the point of expanding the system? We have problems to deal with in these three national parks." If the minister had acted on the advice of the civil servants, we would not have Waterton Lakes, which is now a World Heritage Site. We have faced this challenge in the past and overcome it. I would suggest that part of the reason we can afford new national parks is we are no longer putting into place hundred-million-dollar deals such as went into place to create Gros Morne and Gwaii Haanas National Park. These park agreements are less about economic development and more about environmental conservation. They are providing employment opportunities to aboriginal people and other local communities. The simple fact is that, as of about five years ago, 65 per cent of the Canadian landscape has been allocated to development or has been developed. We do not have the opportunities much longer to protect those areas. Just look at the mining rush in the north. It cannot, first and foremost, be a question of money, although we need to reduce the amount of money we spend on creating these things. It is about capturing those areas. There are endless ways by which we can do that.
Senator Kenny: We have heard from both of you this morning, and you appear to be taking slightly different approaches. Ms Granskou says basically that we should pass it and get on with it, and you are recommending that we either amend or provide a report back with the bill. Providing reports back is pretty simple to do. They do not tend to cause much action to happen. Where do you come down on that, Mr. McNamee? Do you want to see us amend the bill and delay the process? Or do you want to see us attach a report, assuming we agree with the points that you made in your submission?
Mr. McNamee: It is a good question. I am extremely sympathetic to the position of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Personally, I have a sense that we should get on with the real business at hand. On the other hand, we took a position before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in which we did not support the bill -- we wanted to see it amended -- but that we would work with the new Parks Canada Agency regardless. I have high regard for the agency. It is the bill itself that gives me a problem. I am simply providing you with the perspective of the Canadian Nature Federation. I am trying to be consistent with what we said to the committee. I am trying to provide you with a sense of what the options are. I do not want the process to go on for another year, but I feel it incumbent on me, on behalf of my organization, to tell you what changes we wanted to see. On the other hand, I can assure you, senator, that if you make a report to the house, we will cite that report month after month after month. I think the reports of the Senate are kept alive by constituents who believe in and support what you recommend.
Senator Kenny: I noted your comments about Treasury Board involvement. I am not commenting on them now, just because I think we will have more sport when the minister comes, raising it then. There is one recommendation, though, that I did not understand, and that was your recommendation to eliminate the deputy. It seems to me that the deputy is the Prime Minister's appointee, that the minister and the Prime Minister ought to have the flexibility to pick whomever they want to manage this operation. Why are you specifically red-lining this job?
Mr. McNamee: Let me be very clear, particularly if the deputy minister is watching. I am not suggesting the elimination of the deputy minister in any shape or form. Our recommendation is similar to that pointed out by Dr. Page yesterday in the material circulated by the government: The deputy minister would continue to have a role as the principal policy adviser to the minister on issues related to the agency. We are supporting this agency because it will become separate and independent from the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is not the position I want eliminated, but both Dr. Page and I agree, as do a number of other people, that the deputy minister should not have a role as the principal adviser on what is now to be a separate agency.
This suggestion is made for a number of reasons. First, we do not want anything between the agency and the minister. Indeed, that is why the government argued against a citizens' advisory council. They do not want anything between the minister and the CEO. The second thing is, not this deputy but the first deputy for Canadian Heritage, when Parks Canada was moved into Canadian Heritage, caused a tremendous amount of damage. So some past experience, not with this particular individual, whom we greatly respect, but with a previous deputy, makes us think this way. That deputy eliminated park superintendents and changed the reporting system, so people in headquarters had no idea what was going on in the field. If you are going to create a separate agency, make it separate, and do not have anything between the minister and the CEO.
Senator Kenny: But this is not an issue of personalities. What you are saying is that you do not want the minister to be able to pick and choose whom to go to for advice. I need a better argument than that -- you did not like the last deputy.
Mr. McNamee: Perhaps I should not have raised the issues related to personality but I will still go back to the issue of independence. Our argument, first and foremost, is that we view it as something between the CEO of the agency, who is now supposed to be independent, and the minister. That is our argument.
Senator Spivak: I want to express gratitude on behalf of the people on Parliament Hill -- and I hope I speak for most of them -- for the efforts that both of your organizations make. I have had a lot of experience with Mr. McNamee's organization. I do not have as much experienced with the other organization. We could never have achieved what we have without your efforts.
I want to ask Mr. McNamee about the issue of the buffer zones. In Manitoba, this is a big issue. The park around Clear Lake will be destroyed by what is happening. That issue is dominated by provincial authorities, usually, and the lack of real understanding on the part of the province. The same thing applies to the Cheviot mine in Alberta. Are there any tools in the arsenal of the federal government or the parks agency to deal with this issue?
Mr. McNamee: Everything from using legislation such as the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Both of our organizations are now in federal court because we believe that the review of the Cheviot mine did not meet the standards and the legalities set out in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for accumulative assessments. There are those legislative tools.
One tool that shows more promise is cooperation -- trying to educate people involved in the various provincial processes.
It is my understanding that when it came to an environmental assessment of logging around Riding Mountain National Park, the Department of Canadian Heritage -- Parks Canada -- was the only federal department with an interest that did not show up at those hearings. Provincial conservation groups have written to the Honourable Sheila Copps requesting an explanation. That is why I am suggesting that at least some signal from Parliament to Parks Canada officials is required saying that it is in the national interest to participate in these things.
Ms Granskou: I would offer several suggestions. We feel that it is time to look at federal-provincial agreements covering lands around national parks. I will give the example of what is happening in Alberta around the Cheviot issue and, in particular, lands around Jasper National Park. For the first time we have federal Parks Canada people sitting on committees dealing with the mitigation of issues around Jasper National Park. However, they are not empowered. They are sitting on provincial committees. We need federal and provincial committees so that the federal officials are empowered to implement policy. We would certainly advocate federal-provincial agreements.
We and over 200 organizations are working to address this very issue which both Parks Canada and our U.S. counterparts have signed on to. That is, looking at a particular area where we need strong federal and provincial cooperation in the regions between Yellowstone and the Yukon. The federal and provincial governments can play a role in cooperating on not only buffers, but in ensuring that we have connections between our keystone national parks and other areas protected under provincial, territorial and first nations jurisdiction. I would offer those two remedies.
Senator Spivak: I think there has been a lot of education, and I agree with you about corporation. Are you suggesting that we might include the idea of looking at federal-provincial cooperation in this legislation? This is a pressing issue in my province, the issue of looking at federal-provincial agreements and perhaps putting the idea in the body of a report. Would you be in favour of that?
Ms Granskou: I would definitely be in favour of including it in the body of the report. I would not recommend including it in this particular piece of legislation. I think the context would be very important. Indeed, it builds on a number of the points that Mr. McNamee was raising in his brief.
The Deputy Chairman: I think this is very important with respect to land adjoining the federal parks.
What would you answer to the point that under the Fisheries Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act the federal government already has enough power to do something about what goes on if it has the courage to do so?
Senator Spivak: I want to alert you to the fact that I read in the new Fisheries Act that they want to weaken that power.
Mr. McNamee: Sometimes it comes down to a political call. What we have seen in the past on these issues is that the federal government does not want to anger the provinces over the national parks issue.
One thing I would point out to Senator Spivak is that in Manitoba, the agreement creating Wapoos National Park set in play a park management board. In part, there is supposed to be cooperation between the province and the federal government when it comes to issues outside the park agreement.
We are also trying to get this into the proposed Manitoba Lowlands National Park agreement, because right now the proposed park boundaries are totally inadequate. Under a 13-year logging plan, they propose to log right up to the boundary of the park. We will be right back to the issues we are fighting in the old parks.
When it came to new national parks, Manitoba clearly did offer a model for how to deal with those issues.
Senator Spivak: On the issue of new parks and buying new land versus the notion that we do not have enough money to run what we have, is it not the case that you could purchase lands and leave them for a while? Would that not be better than not being able to purchase them, or establishing parks that you could not manage for a while? If you are faced with that situation, is it not better to do that? What is your view?
Mr. McNamee: I want to clarify something. There is a misconception in the sense that we have to go around Canada buying land in order to establish our national parks. In most of our national parks that is not the issue, because it is mostly Crown land. In establishing these new national parks, provincial Crown land is transferred to the federal government, as we hope will happen with the Manitoba lowlands.
What becomes the issue sometimes is buying out third-party interests, specifically forestry companies and mining companies. That is a reason to get on with the job because in many of these parks, they are not quite into those proposed areas. You keep the bill down by dealing with it now.
The other thing to do appears in Parks Canada's national business plan, and I think it is an imminently sensible idea. They will try to establish a new national park in each one of these 15 unrepresented regions by the year 2000, or to get what we call a land withdrawal or interim protection put into place. If the land is put under an interim protection order, aboriginal people can continue to use the land for traditional uses, but logging and mining companies are kept out of it until the planning studies have finished and the boundary issues resolved. This keeps the price down and keeps the land free of development until a decision is made. I think Parks Canada is trying its best and doing a good job at that.
Senator Spivak: On the issue of cooperation, Manitoba allows all kinds of uses in its provincial parks. Is there a way in which federal and provincial resources could be combined or used in tandem to administer those parks? This might be a radical idea. Is this an idea whose time has not yet come, or do you think Manitoba is the only province that has such a backward view of provincial parks?
Ms Granskou: Our chapter is working very forcefully on some tremendous issues within Manitoba's parks system. Manitoba allows industrial development in its parks system. That is a blight on our protected areas system across Canada. Where I recommend that there could be true cooperation -- both in financial and in management terms -- is on issues relating particularly to external park issues around national parks.
The Auditor General's report has confirmed that parks are increasingly being hammered by issues around their boundaries. They are being clear-cut up to their borders. A sentiment is building among the very credible body of conservation biologists throughout North America and the world that, over the long run, parks in isolation will not preserve particularly long-ranging species. There is a very urgent need for cooperation in the fullest sense of the word.
As well, there is an urgent need for federal departments to come together in a better fashion on these issues -- such as fisheries, parks and others -- because the Fisheries Act alone will not save the day.
Senator Fitzpatrick: You have both spoken of an advisory council or an advisory committee and said that you see a need for it. Are you thinking of corporate governance for the agency, or of a more conceptual type of advisory council dealing with environmental issues, development opportunities, and their interrelationship with public input? Do you see this advisory council dealing at the CEO level or at the ministerial level?
Mr. McNamee: I should like to be clear. I am speaking, I think, on behalf of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, as well as for my own organization. We do not envision this council as something between the minister and the CEO. That is clear. It has no governance. The minister is responsible for the legislation, the regulations and the implementation of policy. We do not want that to change and we do not want a board in between. Many people expressed that opinion during the public consultations.
Let me give you an example as to why I think a board is important. When Parks Canada announced it would become more business-like it had a national business plan. Many groups across country went, "Oh dear, they are going to become more business-like." In fact, it was Ms Granskou and I who phoned the ADM and organized a meeting with him. He explained the role of the national business plan to us. By and large, I think it makes a lot of sense. The reason is because they develop a Park Management Plan, identify priorities, and then they do not fund them. What they are proposing now is a Park Management Plan and a park business plan. The business plan will ensure that funding goes into the priority conservation area, as well as other things that need to be dealt with. That makes a lot of sense.
If we had an advisory council that met regularly in place, the ADM could have presented to a number of people from across the country what this business plan is about, what he intends to do and what our feedback and comments on it were.When we explained to our constituents and environmental groups what this national business plan is about, we could have avoided all kinds of controversy. We could have had more cooperation at the park level. What we are looking for is that two-way dialogue. It does not exist now. Why not formalize it?
Ms Granskou: We are prepared to work with the biennial round table as it is set out in the legislation. What we wanted is some time, on a regular basis, with the minister. We feel we have that. It is not everything we wanted.
Senator Cochrane: My question is about public consultation in regard to the setting up of this agency. We were told by another witness, Mr. Hart, that the decision was made on June 26 to set up this new parks agency and that there was no consultation with the people from across this country. I would have preferred for there to have been consultation -- particularly with the users of the park -- to find out their views. Could you enlighten me on the consultations that have gone on with your groups?
Mr. McNamee: Perhaps the Mayor of Banff did not make himself clear, but I do not want to speak for him. If I understand your question, there were public consultations on the agency. I thought what I heard him say in his testimony is that there were no consultations on the minister's announcement in June with respect to development in Banff.
The Deputy Chairman: I think that is correct.
Mr. McNamee: With respect to the agency, it was announced in the Finance Minister's budget in March 1996. That summer, Parks Canada circulated a document and there were something in the order of 20 meetings across the country. They gave us feedback on those meetings.
The Honourable Andy Mitchell was appointed after the election and there was another document produced for the summer of 1997 that was circulated. People had a chance to comment on that. Then there were the hearings before the standing committee at which both of us appeared.
I think the federal government, without commenting on the quality of the consultations, has gone out of its way to consult with Canadians on the new Parks Canada agency.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much. Your evidence has been most informative.
Our next witness is Rita Morbia from the Sierra Club of Canada.
Ms Rita Morbia, Sierra Club of Canada: Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize that I am speaking on behalf of Elizabeth May, who is our Executive Director. She could not be here because of scheduling conflicts. I will try to be as helpful as I can.
Sierra Club of Canada is a national environmental membership based organization. We have been present in Canada since 1968. Sierra Club was originally founded in the United States in 1892. We have local groups and chapters across Canada. We maintain six offices in three chapters. Our mission statement includes a focus on the following threats: loss of animal and plant species; deterioration of the planet's oceans and atmosphere; and destruction of our remaining wilderness.
We have a long background on issues concerning national parks. Our members were advocates for South Moresby, Pacific Rim, Grasslands and many other parks across Canada. We have also participated in raising the alarm concerning threats to ecological integrity. Existing parks such as Riding Mountain, Jasper and Wood Buffalo, are threatened by logging and mining pressures.
This is a time for real concern about the fate of our national parks. The Auditor General has already determined that the ecological integrity of existing parks is under assault. In fact, he found that it was already compromised. The national parks system is still only half complete in its terrestrial component, while that for the marine parks has hardly begun. Despite commitments by every federal government since 1979, including in the Liberal government's first Red Book, that the national park system will be completed by the year 2000, we are clearly going to fall far short. Attention to national parks by this government is long overdue.
Unfortunately, the Sierra Club of Canada cannot support this bill. Typically, when legislation has reached this stage, we focus attention on particularly troubling clauses or legislative drafting that requires amendment or reworking. This is one of those rare cases where you cannot find what is wrong with the bill by dissecting the language. The devil here is not in the details; it is in the philosophical underpinnings. The operational thrust of the legislation is, in our view, potentially dangerous and antithetical to the very piece of legislation the agency will be mandated to implement: The National Parks Act.
If there was ever a time for sober second thought, this is it. There is no question that Parks Canada is starved for resources. Recent budget cutbacks in the parks service budget have demoralized staff and, as noted above, compromised the ecological integrity of our national parks. The move from Environment Canada to Heritage Canada during the summer of election fever in 1993 was one that the Sierra Club opposed. We argued then that the role of our national parks was primarily one of ensuring the protection of representative and viable areas of Canada's ecological regions. That function shared a common purpose with Environment Canada -- one we feared might be overshadowed within Heritage Canada by perfectly valid but different concerns such as the French language, Canadian culture and sport. That, in fact, happened. Parks Canada's A-base was even pressed to provide funding for amateur sport at a time when Parks Canada's budget was badly squeezed. Resource constraints hemmed in on all sides.
Out of this lack of political attention and budgetary priority came the solution: a Parks Canada agency. The parks service would no longer be vulnerable to encroachment from other elements within the same department. The park service could retain any funds unspent from year to year rather than watching them lapse. Although appropriations under section 19(1) will lapse, revenues generated, other than parliamentary appropriations, do not lapse. It could ask for donations for the establishment of new parks, asking Canadians to buy their own national parks -- an idea unheard of since the dark days of environment minister Suzanne Blais-Grenier. It could raise revenue, save revenue and expend revenue without the formal rules that restrict such entrepreneurship in government departments.
These are attractive features for the beleaguered parks bureaucracy, but the cure may be worse than the disease. This bill can only be viewed as acceptable with a strong assumption that the new way of doing business will not be misused. However, once the legislation is in place, it will be extremely difficult to recall the agency's new powers if the central assumption should prove in the future to be false.
In a worst-case scenario, it is possible to conceive of a situation under Bill C-29 that will allow national parks, unable to pull their weight in a revenue requirement world, to be sold off with proceeds from such sale staying in the Parks Canada agency.
Before it is suggested that such a move is impossible, consider how easily it could be done. A decision to divest a nation of certain parks was already tried unsuccessfully in the U.S. Congress. To keep the commitment to the National Parks Act language, all that is required is an analysis from parks staff that the area is not essential as a representative ecological region -- as Conrad Black would say, "surplus to requirements." Proceeds from such sales would be very attractive in either purchasing other lands for future park status or supplying the needed funds for protecting and managing existing parks. We anticipate a likelihood that the A-base to Parks Canada will shrink, placing increasing pressure on its revenue-generating capacity.
Park superintendents will be increasingly preoccupied with generating revenue, potentially leading to compromising licensing arrangements. If Disney can get rights to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, what would bar such arrangements in our parks? Concessionaires within the national parks promising a more profitable revenue stream will be hard to resist. Golden Arches and Mickey Mouse could easily replace the Parks Canada emblematic beaver as the most seen logo. This raises concerns beyond the aesthetic. Although the government representatives have repeatedly advised that Bill C-29 does not privatize our national parks, it is certainly the thin end of the wedge.
To a greater extent than is already the case, parks will have to pay their own way. Pressures to attract visitors and to extract the maximum dollar per visitor will increase. We are concerned about the implications for access. Parks that fail to meet revenue targets could be ignored or even discarded. Parks experiencing too much traffic for their ecological well-being could be sacrificed in order to maintain a necessary revenue flow. The perennial argument about protecting the ecological integrity of Banff will be even more intense as Parks Canada itself begins to experience an internal conflict between its business self and its conservation self. Although we agree with the need for adequate funding to fulfil park management plans, our concerns lie with the pressure to generate that funding.
If and when foreign companies gain access to the national parks as a premium market, not only would it be politically difficult to send them packing in future years, but any such move could well be the subject of an investor state challenge under chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Opening access to new markets and comodifying any aspects of the natural world and of traditional government activity are now largely irreversible decisions. Trade rules, whether through NAFTA or the proposed multilateral agreement on investment, make such decisions far more difficult to reverse than was the case a decade ago.
There is a reason that our colleagues in other conservation organizations find Bill C-29 lacking the appropriate language relating to the essential role of national parks in preserving planetary biological diversity. Bill C-29, at heart, is not about parks. It is a business plan and it reads like one. The notion that establishing a separate agency might not be the best solution seems not to have been raised in parliamentary debate to this time. It says a great deal about the acquiescence to deficit targets and smaller government rhetoric that the bill has moved so quickly with so little apparent controversy. It is a serious step which should not be rushed through the Senate, as it was through the house.
Parenthetically, we should explain that timetables were so tight and attention focused elsewhere that we did not appear before the house committee.
The governance issues also concern us. The agency will be managed by its chief executive officer, not an assistant deputy minister, with reporting requirements to a deputy and minister. The very title, "CEO," is not without baggage. The message is clear. The agency is to be run like a private sector business. The new CEO of the agency will have broad powers and little public accountability. Even ministerial functions such as those set out in clauses 23 to 25 and clause 28 will be subject to delegation to the CEO.
Even stranger are the CEO's delegation functions contained in clause 12(4). Basically, the CEO can delegate to any person any power, duty, or function conferred upon the CEO. This makes for flexible business dealings but will require a degree of oversight currently unthinkable in parks management.
However, oversight is thin. Annual reports focus on financial issues and responsibility to Treasury Board. It is only every second year that a report is required to set out the state of the parks. Ecological integrity, that primary purpose under the Parks Act, surfaces as an aspect of the report required five years after the establishment of any new park or heritage site.
Public accountability of the CEO is limited to the convening of a round table. The round table is to include persons interested in matters for which the agency is responsible. Its function is purely advisory. Sierra Club members and staff have a wealth of experience with round tables. This one will likely roll in all the conservation and parks groups, heritage groups, tourism interests, and an increasing sector of private operations licensed or leasing commercial access to parks. It is not likely to provide anything other than the appearance of some level of public accountability. We note that, at first reading, the language relating to public fora has been removed.
The debate about Bill C-29 needs to move to a higher plane than whether particular clauses can be modestly improved. It needs to be about the fundamentals of the role of government, when revenue generation is appropriate in the public sector and when it is dangerous. Even the most aggressive bastion of the free market, the U.S., retains responsibility for parks directly under its Secretary of the Interior.
Is it wise to create an agency with private-sector-like attributes to safeguard Canada's most precious lands, waters, and species that live within them? National parks are Canada's most protected areas and fall in its highest category. Even under traditional department management, things are falling apart. The solution is not to risk the very essence of parks management, a focus on protection, in favour of a solution to the new, downsized world. The solution is to restore Parks Canada to its logical departmental home within Environment Canada and to ensure that it receives adequate funding to meet the political commitments of the last two decades.
It is not that there is no money in this government. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, for example, continues to receive a direct subsidy of $100 million per year, as well as numerous other benefits. It is that there is no money for parks.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much. Your recommendation is to put it in the Department of the Environment, but you will notice that you are appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources. In other words, if it were back in Environment, it would be running neck and neck with developing our oil and gas fields and the diamond mining of the north.
Had you realized that Environment Canada, as it is now, is a more exploitative type of setting than would be an agency set by itself for the parks?
Ms Morbia: In terms of Environment Canada, there is a more compatible role. There is consideration within Environment Canada for the environment. I realize that there are other considerations as well, but we feel that it would be more compatible with the role of Environment Canada to safeguard ecological concerns.
Senator Spivak: I cannot remember the history of the move from Environment Canada to Heritage Canada. Do you have any idea of the reasons at that time for the movement from Heritage to Environment?
Ms Morbia: I am unable to answer that question. I will take it back with me.
Senator Spivak: Is the position of the Sierra Club that there is too much of a risk in "hiving" off this agency and making it, to some extent, subject to its own revenue generation?
Ms Morbia: Yes.
Senator Spivak: Are you suggesting that we do not pass this bill?
Ms Morbia: Yes, that would be the suggestion.
The Deputy Chairman: I am not, heaven forbid, accusing the Sierra Club of being old-fashioned.
Senator Spivak: I hope it is old-fashioned.
The Deputy Chairman: I am wondering about the general public awareness of the environment and the need to preserve as much of the environment as we can in Western society, and certainly in Canada and the U.S. Perhaps it is because we are so highly urbanized now compared to what we were in the past. The public is very sensitized to that.
Please comment on whether this should be the time for the parks to have their own body, the parks agency, where the public has input in round tables every two years and a review is held every five years? Is it time to cut it loose from the coat tails of any department? This is one of the ways of doing it.
Ms Morbia: There is no doubt that improvements could be made in terms of public input. Our concern here is with the revenue-generating aspects of this bill. As I mentioned before, in a worst-case scenario, this could lead to something where it is not the ecological integrity of the parks that is the primary concern. Our main concerns stem from that. However, we would agree that the public does possibly have more of a role to play in parks.
Senator Cochrane: I know that you are concerned about creeping commercialization in the parks, but I am sure that you also recognize that visitors to the parks do need access to services like accommodation, food, and gas for their vehicles. Would you argue that the existing park service is more likely to strike a reasonable balance on this issue than a new parks agency?
Ms Morbia: We would argue that the potential for skewing the balance is higher with the new agency than it would be if parks were moved to Environment or left as they stand.
Senator Cochrane: How do you figure that? Are you looking at other organizations and probably increased commercialization? Would you elaborate on that?
Ms Morbia: Pressure would be put on parks, individual parks or as a whole, to generate revenue. Because of that, the fee structure would change, and there would be, as we have indicated in the brief, licensing agreements and that kind of thing that would not be favourable in terms of the ecological aspects of maintaining parks.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you.
Senator Fitzpatrick: In listening to you, it seems to me that you are saying that you would really like to see either the agency, or whatever it is, report to the Department of the Environment. It is not so much the agency that you are opposed to but the umbrella to which it reports. Do I have that correct?
Ms Morbia: To some extent, yes. However, as I said, our concerns do lie with the broad powers given to the CEO in this case, as well.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much. With that, honourable senators, we will adjourn.
The committee adjourned.