Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 11 - Evidence - Afternoon 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 12:20 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Kenny: Colleagues, I move, in the absence of the deputy chairman, that we invite Senator Fairbairn to take the chair and commence the meeting. Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.
The Acting Chairman: Honourable senators, we have as our final witness today the Minister responsible for our National Parks, the Honourable Andy Mitchell. We will be pleased to hear your comments, Mr. Mitchell, if you would like to give us any thoughts you have as the committee ends its discussion of this bill, and then we can ask some questions. Do you have a fairly open period of time with us, or are you constrained because of the opening of the House at two o'clock?
Hon. Andy Mitchell, P.C., M.P., Secretary of State (Parks): I do need to be in the House by 2:15.
The Acting Chairman: We will proceed, then.
Mr. Mitchell: Let me begin by thanking the members of the Senate and the committee for the work you are doing on Bill C-29. As I am sure many of you are aware, this project was first put forward as part of the budget of 1996, which included the concept of developing operational agencies within government. It is a process we in Parks Canada have been undertaking since that time.
The establishment of an agency for Parks Canada has, as one of its primary objectives, the need to bring certainty to this organization. As most of you are aware, Parks Canada has almost been the orphan of various departments over the years. It has belonged to Indian Affairs, then Environment, and it is now part of Heritage Canada. The development and creation of an agency will provide an organizational structure that will bring a certain amount of certainty to our operations. From talking to our employees, I know that is a welcome development.
As I mentioned, the concept was first brought forward in 1996 as part of the budget. Since then, we have undertaken fairly extensive consultations with Canadians in general, as well as with groups of Canadians who have a specific interest in parks, and very importantly, with our employees. Those consultations included two rounds. The first occurred in 1996, where a consultant travelled throughout the country on behalf of Parks Canada and obtained a fair amount of information. The second was in 1997, where I personally conducted consultations across Canada. I spoke to many members of Canadian groups who have expressed an interest in our portfolio, and I also spoke with our employees.
That experience was fortuitous for me, having just taken over the portfolio. It provided me with a tremendous opportunity to learn about Parks Canada, and as well to see what are some of the most beautiful places in the world. I must say, as I arrived into Banff for the first time as the minister responsible for it, I understood clearly how the decisions that were collectively taken 113 years ago to protect that special place in Canada resulted in the fact that we have Banff National Park of today. Without those decisions we would not have it. That fact places a burden on parliamentarians today to make equally sound decisions so that the generations of the future will benefit as we have done.
I should like to begin by talking a bit about what the agency is and what the agency is not. The agency is an operating entity. It is a hybrid form of government organization that lies somewhere between a department and a Crown corporation. Its job is to carry out the day-to-day operations and administration of Parks Canada. It does not change, and therefore it does not dilute, our mandate in national parks. Our mandates are clearly stated in our governing legislation, primarily the National Parks Act, and we hope that they will soon be stated in the bill to establish marine conservation areas.
Bill C-29 simply creates the structure that carries out the mandates that are placed in those pieces of legislation.
The agency also makes a very clear separation between operation and policy. The agency's responsibility lies in the area of operation. The issues of policy, public input into that policy, and the political process remain firmly with the minister and with Parliament. The agency is a public agency, publicly accountable to Canadians through our institution.
The agency is not the privatization of parks. What the agency does is to allow us to operate in a business-like manner, bearing in mind that we are not a business. When we establish a national park -- and I hope that we will be able to announce a few more shortly -- we do not do that because we think we can turn a profit. We do not do that in light of a revenue stream that we believe we can generate. We do that because, collectively, we feel, as Canadians, the importance of protecting our natural heritage and our special places in this country. There is a very clear distinction here: Parks Canada will remain a public, accountable entity and not a business.
I think that can be also seen very clearly when one takes a look at our revenue sources. Today, approximately 75 per cent of the budget of Parks Canada is from appropriations. Approximately 25 per cent is through cost recovery. It is our intention to maintain roughly that balance into the future, so that Canadians, collectively, pay the vast majority of the cost of maintaining our national parks system.
Second, let me make it clear that the establishment of the agency is not a cost-cutting exercise. Rather, it is a response to the new economic realities under which we have to operate today. All of us around this table know that when this government came to office in 1993, it faced a $42-billion deficit. Tough, important decisions were made in order to bring the budget into balance.
Parks Canada, faced with those decisions, and faced with the fact that we continued to have the same mandate as we had before, needed to find an operating structure that would allow us to continue to carry out our mandate, but in a more effective way and with the resources that we had available to us. The agency is a response to that. I believe an examination of the details of that legislation will show it is an appropriate response and one that will be effective in allowing us to carry out our mandate, given the resources that we presently have.
The introduction of an agency is not an attempt to reduce the complement or staff of Parks Canada. Rather, it is an attempt to give our employees tools that will allow them to do their jobs more effectively. I would like to take a moment to discuss what some of those tools are.
Essentially, they can be characterised in four broad areas. First is the area of organizational simplicity. Parks Canada operating as an agency will be a very much flattened organization where we will have a field unit superintendent reporting directly to the CEO of the agency, who in turn will report directly to the minister responsible.
This allows for a substantial improvement in terms of the time lines to obtain decisions. It also results in our field unit superintendents being able to make a greater range of decisions that better reflect local conditions and challenges.
I learned in the last year and a half that each one of our national parks, national historic sites and other entities that come under our portfolio are very different. How we manage Banff or Jasper is very different from how we would manage Pukaskwa, here in Ontario, or Gros Morne or any other of our parks. The agency allows for the flexibility to make local decisions that reflect local needs.
Second, the issue of organizational stability is addressed. The agency will have, from an operational standpoint, a self-contained, enabling certainty and predictability. Our employees have long sought this and it is essential for Parks Canada.
Third, the creation of the agency will provide and establish a financial flexibility that is not normally available to a government department. These new authorities provide for revenue retention, two-year rolling budgets to encourage expenditure decisions based on business reasons rather than being driven by the calendar, and a non-lapsing capital account for the creation of new parks and sites.
Fourth, we will have the ability to establish a new human resource regime. Quite frankly, the conditions that we work under in Parks Canada are very different from the broader public service. We operate 365 days a year, in all kinds of geography, in all kinds of conditions, from coast to coast to coast. It is important to design a human resource regime that reflects the realities under which we operate. This agency will allow us to do that.
We have been working very closely with our employees for the last several months through a series of working groups, as well as with those groups who represent our employees, to come up with the HR regime that they feel is appropriate for the conditions under which they operate. I can say that that has been a very collaborative effort and substantial progress has been made, to the general satisfaction of all parties involved in that endeavour.
In addition to talking about some of the tools, I know that the issue of accountability has not only been discussed at this committee, but at the committee of the other place, as well as during the extensive consultation process that has taken place.
One of my key objectives, through the process of establishing the agency, was to ensure public accountability for the actions that we take. That is essential because we exercise stewardship over our natural heritage on behalf of all Canadians. Therefore, it is essential to have that accountability, and to have that accountability exercised through parliamentarians.
We have ensured that there is a series of additional tools that will allow public scrutiny of what we do -- not replacement tools but additional tools.
A summary of our five-year corporate plan will be tabled in Parliament as well as our annual report. For the first time, every five years, we will be tabling a summary of a third-party report on the consistency of our HR management regime and our HR values and principles. When we establish our HR regime, there will be a third party to review that in terms of its effectiveness, and we will table the results of that review in Parliament.
We are subject to the Auditor General and his reviews. We will be tabling, every two years, a report on the state of Canadian protected heritage areas. For the first time, under this proposed legislation, we will be tabling the historic site management plans.
These are in addition to things that we are already mandated to do, some of which some of you have been involved with in the past. Parliament will continue to approve the establishment of new parks. Parliament will continue to approve the appropriations. National park management plans will continue to be tabled in Parliament and the sustainable development plan will continue to be tabled every three years.
There are other issues in terms of accountability. One of the more important new approaches that we have brought forward in this particular bill provides for public input and accountability; that is, to require the minister to convene a biannual round table of persons interested in the agency and Parks Canada. This round table structure has been discussed extensively, both in the consultation and in the hearings in the other place. There are some important components that reflect some of the information that we heard.
First, the consultative process should be an inclusive entity, including a large number of individuals with different perspectives and a wide range of views, and the process by which the advice is given should be as transparent as possible.
Second, the round table, or whatever entity you use, should provide the advice directly to the minister and not the CEO, so that the advice can be on policy as well as on operations. The advice of the round table, as it is structured in the proposed legislation today, goes to the minister.
Third, there needs to be accountability in the consultative process, and that is why there is a requirement, on behalf of the minister, to provide a written report on the findings of the round table. Therefore, it will not be simply an exercise in putting your complaints on paper. There is a responsibility on the part of the minister to respond formally.
Fourth, we were trying not to create an additional bureaucratic structure within government. As I mentioned earlier, one of our goals, in terms of being more efficient, was to flatten our organization, not to add additional structures. We certainly did not want to place any barriers between the minister and those people who sought to give input to the minister.
This is a unique structure. It is in addition to a number of other consultative measures that we have as a matter of course in Parks Canada, including a public process by which all of our management plans are developed.
Our parks and historic sites operate on a five-year management plan. There is a requirement for public consultation in the development of those plans. As I mentioned earlier, to ensure that public accountability, there is extensive reporting to Parliament through a number of instruments.
The tools and processes that we have provided in this proposed legislation will ensure public accountability. However, I will not say that we have finished.
You have my commitment as the minister, and on behalf of the agency as well, to evaluate on an ongoing basis the effectiveness of the tools that we are putting in place and to ensure that they are doing what they are designed to do, which is to allow the public to participate in and provide input toward the management of our parks and historic sites system. If we find there is need for additional tools or amended tools, we will obviously proceed along that path.
I would be happy to answer questions to the best of my ability.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Kenny: My first question relates to the flexibility of management and the tools that you have given the agency. I wish to draw your attention to clauses 21(3), 22(2) and 33(4) of the bill. They relate to approval by Treasury Board being required. The case has been put to us by earlier witnesses that the flexibility of management to which the government is referring is diminished fairly significantly by these three clauses. Do have you a comment on that?
Mr. Mitchell: As a public entity, Treasury Board is a reality in our lives. It is our intention to go to Treasury Board once and get a broad framework established, the rules of the game, so to speak, and then we will be able to operate within that. For instance, because we will be a separate employer, we will not be going back and forth as negotiations go on. We will get approval for a framework from Treasury Board. The same applies to our corporate plan. We will get a framework corporate plan approved, and then we will be able on operate within that framework.
So yes, there is a Treasury Board function. As a public entity, that will exist. However, we are structuring it so that we will deal with them once; establish the framework, and then have the flexibility to operate within that framework.
Senator Kenny: In the same vein, one of the tools referred to was revenue retention. It was not clear to the committee whether revenue retention would be kept within a given park or within a given management unit or whether revenue retention would go into a central fund that would be dealt with across the agency. Specifically, it is easy to see how revenue retention is an incentive to managers to manage better, but we are wondering whether managers will be faced with a replication of the problem of a few years ago where, if you had an efficient manager, the savings went into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not back into the manager's bailiwick.
Mr. Mitchell: Looking at the series of options you gave at the beginning, I would have to say, "All of the above."
A number of components are at play here. First, will there be movement of revenue from one part of the park system to another? Absolutely. I have under my jurisdiction parks that generate very little revenue but have expenses related to the environment and protection. Other parks are substantial revenue generators. There may in fact be situations where you might see the revenue moved. I have many different entities, so I must look at it from a holistic standpoint.
In addition to that, a field unit superintendent will establish a budget and will keep all the revenue in order to meet budget requirements. Conversely, if something affected that unit -- weather being the most obvious factor, because with a bad weather year the best manager in the world might not meet revenue targets -- the superintendent will be able to call upon the parks portfolio as a whole in order to make that up.
There is a bonus system in place where, if you exceed your revenue, a percentage can be maintained.
We walk a bit of a tightrope here. We want our field superintendents to be good and efficient managers, but we must always keep in mind that we do things in parks not simply to generate a revenue stream.
Senator Spivak: I did not quite understand your answer on the corporate plan. If a proposed property is not within the corporate plan, Treasury Board cannot approve it. This mutes the flexibility. In the past, that has prevented Parks Canada from taking advantage of a situation. They could not buy land because it was not part of the corporate plan. I am speaking of the Bruce Peninsula National Park, for example, where they could not acquire the Empire Valley Ranch. I am not sure that I understand exactly what you mean by flexibility.
Mr. Mitchell: The idea is to have a corporate plan approved which would include a provision that would allow us as Parks Canada to acquire a property that we need to complete, in the case of national parks, our system plan.
We have 15 unrepresented regions. The parks system plan comprises 39 geographic regions each of which have at least one park. The plan would allow us to purchase property that we need to complete our system plan. You will not need to go back for an individual piece of property if you are operating within your system plan.
Senator Spivak: That is not the point, with respect. Those properties will be within a corporate plan. However, if something comes up which is vitally important or ecologically necessary but is not part of the corporate plan, the agency cannot go ahead and buy it. That mutes the flexibility. That is the point.
Mr. Mitchell: It is a hypothetical situation.
Senator Spivak: It has happened in the past.
Mr. Mitchell: It might have happened in the past, but we now have a clear and concise system plan under which we intend to acquire property. As important as it may be for ecological purposes to acquire a particular property, whether the parks would be the vehicle to do it is another issue, if it is outside of our system plan.
As well, there is the flexibility of having a capital account from which we can draw down in a given year, even though we might not have the current appropriations. Previously, we might have been stuck when trying to purchase a piece of property because we did not have the budget that year. We can actually borrow against future appropriations and make the purchase when it makes sense. In reality, we have more flexibility in terms of acquiring property when we need it.
Senator Kenny: My last question is a human resources question. In your opening comments you touched on the support within Parks Canada for this proposal. There is a lingering feeling that an agency approach has a hidden agenda, that, at some point in the future, people will find they were privatized or they will not have the same fringe benefits, and that somewhere, somehow, this will come out of the skin of the employees. Would you comment on that, please?
Mr. Mitchell: Let me assure you, as I have directly assured the employees in the past, that there is no hidden agenda here. The actions the government took in terms of staffing levels and budget reductions occurred without the need to cover it up with an agency.
The agency is a response to the economic realities that confront us today, and is strictly designed to provide our employees with the tools to carry out their mandate with the resources available. It is not an attempt to change those resources. It is an attempt to give them the tools to make the best use of the available resources. One of the things we have done in order to try to bring some assurance to our employees, is to have both the employees and the unions as partners with us as we design the HR regime.
I know the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents about 80 per cent of the employees of Parks Canada, has been very supportive of the agency and the regime which we are designing. I cannot speak for either the unions or individual employees, but I believe they see this in large part as an opportunity to create something unique that reflects what Parks Canada employees must deal with on an ongoing basis.
I am very fortunate to have this portfolio. I have men and women who have a dedication that goes far beyond what you might expect from someone who has a job. These are men and women who are dedicated to the principles and the ideals of our national parks system. When we gave them the opportunity to participate as partners in developing the regime, they grasped that opportunity and worked actively with us.
I can state publicly that there is no hidden agenda here. There is an agenda to give our employees the tools they need to carry out effectively the public mandate we have given them as parliamentarians.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Minister, the testimony that we have heard certainly indicates that Parks Canada is woefully underfunded for the management of the parks that we have now, apart from the fact that 15 new parks need to be acquired before the year 2000 to complete the protected spaces program. The mayor of Banff has said that the parks administration at Banff is in crisis after rounds of downsizing. Watching the warden service in Banff struggle with wildlife and ecosystem management problems at the same time that they are trying to provide public safety, et cetera, is painful. They do not have the resources to do the job they are doing, let alone new ones, and this unconscionable situation exists in virtually all of the other places previously mentioned.
As you know, the most recent state-of-the-parks report has suggested that actually two-thirds of the parks are increasingly damaged by users. Here you have a situation where under this piece of proposed legislation, you want them to do the same job with the same resources. There is nothing in this legislation that guarantees them more resources, and they will need to rely on revenue generation. Where will it come from? It will come from users. You are caught here between the need for revenue generation and the realization that the means of revenue generation will damage the parks, because it has already been documented by scientists that that is happening.
I believe you stated that those will be the resources. Are you not contemplating additional resources from the public purse to manage these parks? We have seen additional resources for things like Suncor and Syncrude oil companies.
Mr. Mitchell: Parks Canada is not any different from many other public and private organization. If the Parks Canada portfolio had additional financial resources, there are additional things that could be done. It is important to look at what we are doing here. We are creating an operational structure that will allow us to complete a function far more efficiently and at a lower cost. I will give a very simple example. When you operate with a regional office, the field superintendent reports to that office, which reports to the head of the agency. He reports to an ADM, who reports to a DM, who reports to a minister. When you make the reporting relationship superintendent, to head of agency, to minister, you cut out two full levels of reporting, and you cut out a pile of expense. There are examples after examples of the way we are setting up this operation to try to cut the cost of doing business. That is one of the ways in which we are trying to use the agency and the tools of the agency to allow us to continue to fulfil our mandate by reducing the cost or, putting it another way, making ourselves more efficient in what we do.
Does that mean we are able to do everything we wish to do in the year that we wish to do it? Probably not. We spend a great deal of our time in setting our priorities and putting our resources to those priorities. It is interesting that you mention the state-of-the-parks report, because the state-of-the-parks report -- and many people have commented on this -- was not a document where we tried to smooth over our problems. We were very open and quite frank about what our challenges were and what we needed to work on. Our job in Parks Canada will not necessarily be to end those challenges. Quite frankly, in many cases they will not end. Our job is to manage those challenges.
I will give you an example from my home area. Georgian Bay Islands National Park, the smallest national park in Canada, will always have as its major stress the fact that 7 million people live within a two-hour drive. No matter what I do, I will not eliminate that stress. At least, I do not believe I will. There is likely to be 7 million people, probably more. My job is to try to manage it, and that is what the state-of-the-parks report was all about -- trying to identify those stresses and identify those areas where we needed to manage.
Collectively, as Canadians, as we move ahead and we start to allocate resources -- if we do -- I will make the case vigorously that Parks Canada is deserving of additional allocations in the future. That is down the road, but I will be there.
Senator Spivak: Under sub-clause 8(d), it indicates that the agency may licence, assign, et cetera, industrial trademark, or so forth. They can sell any trademark. The worry is that we may, as with the RCMP, look at the "Disneyfication" of our parks, and instead of the beaver logo we might have Mickey Mouse or whatever. What are the safeguards to prevent that happening? I am certain it is not the view of most Canadians that that should happen.
Mr. Mitchell: It is certainly not the view of most Canadians, and they have made that point quite clear in the consultations. It is not my view either. We have our charter where we set our broad principles, and we will not allow any of that to take place.
Senator Spivak: The third and last question has to do with accountability and the fact that most people whom you consulted really wanted an advisory council. Dr. Page, who was here from the Banff Bow Valley study, was very emphatic about that -- that there ought to be an advisory committee or council that could be called together, not just biannually but when needed.
I am curious to know why you rejected that concept. Most people are suggesting it should be strictly advisory and not a barrier to the accountability between the agency and the minister, but it would enable the sort of public consultation that could be carried on continuously.
Mr. Mitchell: Let me make it clear that it is not the principle that is being rejected here. The principle of consultation and public accountability is one to which I adhere completely. When one looks at the legislation, as well as the history of how we have operated in the last while, one will see that we clearly believe in that. The question comes as to structure and how to do it.
We have a number of existing structures. I talked about the management plans and all the public consultation that went into that. In my testimony, I talked a little about some of the concerns I would have with that specific type of structure. Will it be as inclusive as a biannual meeting can be, or will we end up with 12 or 14 folks on an advisory committee who hold a particular perspective and are trying to represent a broad cross-section of people? Will it create a barrier between individuals and the minister? In talking about our concerns about structure, and through a lot of discussion, we came up with a biannual meeting type of structure.
Inasmuch as we accept the principles of public accountability and the ability of the public to advise the agency, we will take a look to see if the processes we have established in the bill are working the way we want them to. If we find that they are not working, then we will certainly have to revisit them. One of the options could very well be an advisory council. We do that in certain circumstances already. We did the Bow Valley study, which was an advisory body.
One of the campaign promises in the Red Book was the establishment of an ecological panel to review our parks system. In the not too distant future I intend to formally announce that ecological panel. That desire to get expertise and opinion involved will in fact find fruition through the ecological panel.
Senator Spivak: I wish to thank the minister and assure him that he will have a great deal of support from all sides in his efforts to establish that panel.
Mr. Mitchell: Thank you.
Senator Milne: Mr. Minister, I am not a regular member of this committee, so perhaps my being here today is fortuitous. I do not want to put you on the spot, but I was very glad to hear you emphasize the importance of protecting our special places and to hear that there will be public input and accountability for the actions of this prospective agency.
My concerns stem from a visit I made to Green Gables in the spring. First, I was appalled that Parks Canada, in what was an ordinary Prince Edward Island farmhouse, had built a barn over the access to it. I do not know of one farm in Canada where the only way you get to the house is through the barn. Second, when I went into the gift shop, a concessionaire had filled it with yards and yards of shelves with identical Anne dolls on them. I have a great deal more faith in your own assessment of some of these parks gift shops, concessions, and methods of raising money that Parks Canada now uses than I do in your consultants, because they were the ones who led us to the fiasco down there. I hope you can reassure me that there will be some ministerial control over the goods that concessionaires keep on their shelves in public parks and national parks. There is a place and a demand for the ordinary "ticky-tacky," as I call it, but there is also a demand for goods of a better quality. Further, perhaps space should be reserved so that local artists and artisans could sell their products through some of these outlets. I hope you can give me some reassurance that this may happen in the future.
Mr. Mitchell: That is an excellent example, and I will address it.
The way we structure the agency is such that the establishment of policy remains within the prerogative of the minister and the political process. Along with your colleagues in the other place, you do not have the ability to deal with a bureaucratic structure, but you can deal directly with a minister. You can say, "Andy, things are outrageous out there; look into it." We have designed this system specifically for that purpose so that it can be overseen politically. We do not want to simply delegate it to a bureaucratic structure. That is certainly one process.
Second, a consultative process would occur at the local level. That has to be overseen nationally because one could make local decisions that do not reflect national concerns. In addition, that is something that we have to ensure.
Quite frankly, the key is that we have kept policy within the political process, and the job of the agency is to carry out the day-to-day operations. You, as a parliamentarian, have the opportunity to have a publicly accountable individual look into and act on those concerns, and so does any other Canadian.
Senator Milne: I am delighted to hear that, because I intend to have a little chat with you in the future about the letter you or someone in your department wrote to me on August 28. You signed the letter. What happened there -- and I hope it is not indicative of what could happen in other parks -- was disgraceful.
Senator Cochrane: I am so pleased that Senator Milne raised this issue because, over the summer, I visited the particular park to which she referred, and I found exactly the same thing. National items were not displayed.
I must tell Senator Milne that she need not have any worries because if she wants to come to our two national parks in Newfoundland -- Gros Morne and Terre Nova -- they have beautiful examples of culture in every shape and form. I recommend that you come to Newfoundland.
Mr. Minister, I am very happy you are here because I am rather appalled to hear that Gros Morne National Park does not fall under the National Parks Act. I had the understanding that it did. Can you give me a commitment or a time frame as to when Gros Morne park will officially fall under the National Parks Act?
Mr. Mitchell: I believe eight entities are in a similar situation. After there is a land withdrawal and a parks agreement, we then begin to operate as a park. There is a requirement in the present act to then amend the National Parks Act to bring that park formally under the protection of the National Parks Act. That means going to Parliament and having the legislation adopted.
Indeed, such a piece of legislation will be before this committee in two-weeks' time on one of those eight entities. Having to introduce a separate piece of legislation in the House each time has been a problem in terms of process. It is my hope to have legislation in the not too distant future. Part of that process will be to present to parliamentarians an alternative, a more streamlined and efficient way of doing things.
If those amendments go through -- and I hope that they will be out this winter -- then we will have the structure that will enable us to bring that forward with full park protection.
Senator Cochrane: When that comes about, will Gros Morne officially be part of the National Parks Act?
Mr. Mitchell: That is correct. I am being careful on my timing because it is you, my colleagues, who will ultimately decide the timing of it and how long it takes for the legislation to go through the House.
Senator Cochrane: I will do a lot of lobbying to have this done, I can assure you of that.
You mentioned that Bill C-38 will be coming before us. It will set up this new park within the Northwest Territories. I understand that there is a problem there because of some mining development that is about to take place. This is where my concern comes in with regard to my own park. I think we had better be careful here. The sooner I can get this through, the better.
Mr. Mitchell: I agree with you, senator.
Senator Fitzpatrick: My comment and question is supplementary to Senator Spivak's question regarding the issue of accountability. You mentioned, minister, that a round table would be established to review the activities on the basis of accountability on a biannual basis and that a response to it would be required by the minister. You went on to say that if additional measures are needed you would consider those.
A number of the witnesses who have given testimony have talked about having an advisory council which would engage in more frequent meetings and discussions. I wish to bring that to your attention and ask you to confirm that that is the sort of tool that you would consider adopting, if necessary.
Mr. Mitchell: Absolutely, senator. If we find that what we have in place is not effective and we need more effective means, that will be one of the options we will consider.
Senator Kroft: I, too, could not be newer to this committee. My question is related to a Manitoba issue. I am proceeding on the assumption that Lower Fort Garry is within a national historic site.
Mr. Mitchell: That is right.
Senator Kroft: My comment relates to the scope of authority dealing with the agency which focuses on administration and the natural interests of the committee on the conservation side. Senator Spivak has expressed concerns about budget needs caused by wear and tear on sites with too much traffic, but I have a flip side concern.
Those of us who spent our lives in Winnipeg know that we have a national treasure within 20 minutes of the city at the lower fort. It is one of the only standing stone forts in the country and it is magnificent, yet it is totally unknown even to Winnipegers. Most Winnipegers have long since forgotten it. If you were to ask most of them, they would tell you that it is probably closed most of the time.
What I am interested in is the marketing mandate, which is the other side of the equation to conservation. I will run the risk of wear and tear on a facility if it means that all sorts of people are coming to see it, enjoy it and learn from it. I really do not understand where there may be interjurisdictional issues with the province and so on.
Mr. Mitchell: It is clearly within our mandate to ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to experience both our parks and our national historic sites and that we provide an interpretative component to that. That is part of what we do. Generally speaking, polling shows that Canadians identify the fourth most recognized symbol of Canada as our national parks. I believe our historic sites are the sixth most recognized. It is implanted in general terms, but you are quite right about specific terms.
Some of you may have seen this summer that Parks Canada undertook an active promotion campaign to get the idea of our parks and historic sites into the forefront of Canadians' minds. That took place both on television as well as in print media across the country.
We use the Internet as a tool. It is used by Canadians who are looking for places to go. We work with the tourism industry and with the Canadian Tourism Commission in terms of trying to make known our product. Can we do a better job? Yes. Should we be doing a better job? Yes.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, you have answered all the questions, although more may come up in the future. I want to thank you for taking the time to appear before us today.
Mr. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and senators.
The Deputy Chairman: We will now move into clause-by-clause study of the bill.
Shall the title stand?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chairman, do we need to proceed with the bill on a clause-by-clause basis or can we adopt the bill as it stands? Are there some specific clauses to which we should refer? I am sure Senator Spivak has some comments to make.
Senator Spivak: I think we ought to spend a bit of time looking at the report that might accompany this bill and the issues that we wish to raise therein. Reality indicates that this bill will pass.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the 62 clauses of the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Shall the appendix carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Carried.
Shall the bill be reported to the Senate without amendment? If you want to put forward an amendment or a note, this is the time to do so.
Senator Spivak: No, I do not think this is the time. This is the report.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that we report the bill without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Carried.
I will now open the floor regarding the report that we will take to the Senate.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Chairman, one of the major concerns here is that there is no statement of conservation. This bill should include within it the purpose of conservation. I would very much like to see that included. The wording of such a statement has been given to us from the Canadian Nature Federation, on page 3 of their brief. I would suggest that the minister consider such a statement of purpose in this bill.
Perhaps the research staff could help us with the wording. I would suggest it read, for example: "This committee of the Senate strongly urges the minister to consider that the conservation purpose be within the import of the legislation."
The Deputy Chairman: I am not sure I follow that. You are saying that it is found on page 3, but I find it under "statement of purpose."
Senator Spivak: Yes, it is on page 3. The wording is found there.
The Deputy Chairman: You would like to take that out of heading 2. You mentioned number 3.
Senator Spivak: No, it is found on page 3.
The Deputy Chairman: I agree that we are on page 3, but I see item 3 on page 3. Is that what you want?
Senator Spivak: No, item 2 on page 3.
The Deputy Chairman: Under item 2 there is something called 3.
Senator Spivak: That is right.
The Deputy Chairman: If I understand, you are saying that our report to the Senate should contain the following statement:
The purpose of the Agency is to protect nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage in national parks, national historic sites, marine conservation areas and related heritage areas...
Is that it?
Senator Spivak: No. The suggestion here is to say that the essential statement of conservation purpose is missing from the legislation and that we would strongly urge that it be included or in some way be seen as an essential purpose of this legislation. This is being looked at as strictly an organizational bill. Yet when the original consultations began, it was also seen as a way in which to strengthen the mandate under the National Parks Act. It is just a reinforcement.
The Deputy Chairman: I see your point.
Senator Kenny: Can the staff prepare something for us? I am not sure what the timing consequences are. I see what Senator Spivak is referring to, but I am not certain what sort of preamble she wants. I do not know if other members want to add to it. It would be much easier if we had a piece of paper before us that outlined what everyone had in mind.
Senator Spivak: Unfortunately, the time-frame is such that this is not possible. If we were to sit another day it might be different. I see your point, Senator Kenny, but I think the purpose here is to respond to the witness's suggestion that the conservation mandate be stressed and reinforced. Anything that would achieve that purpose would be acceptable.
Senator Kenny: I am not opposed to that, I am simply saying that I should like to see what we are doing before we vote to do it.
The Deputy Chairman: I have some trouble with that, Senator Spivak. The definitions, which are contained in the second page of the bill, run from paragraph (a) through to paragraph (m). You are referring to paragraph (h), which states:
to ensure the ecologically sustainable use of marine conservation areas
and paragraph (l) states:
to maintain ecological and commemorative integrity...
I find it hard to write a report on that. I know you have good intentions -- and I appreciate them -- but I think they are already covered here.
Senator Fitzpatrick: I understand what Senator Spivak is saying. At first you were asking us to incorporate this exact clause but now I understand what you want to say.
Senator Spivak: No. That would require an amendment and we are not putting forward any amendments.
Senator Fitzpatrick: You want to say that there should be a report attached to this, which should take into consideration the necessity of protecting significant national examples.
Senator Spivak: It would be included as part of the legislation. It is there in the preamble, not in the legislation. That is my point.
Senator Fitzpatrick: If you can scratch that out, then we might know where we are at.
Senator Kenny: I do not know what the time constraints are, but the Senate will not be sitting for this week and you will not be making the report next week, because no one in Parliament is sitting. Is it possible to have a draft prepared and circulated to members of the committee and to have a short meeting before the house meets on Tuesday to discuss the report?
The Deputy Chairman: It is agreed that it is reported without amendment but we are to meet again to approve a paragraph that brings the message that we want to see conservation emphasized a little more. We cannot say "within legislation," because we have approved the legislation.
Senator Spivak: Not this legislation, but there is always an opportunity to do so at a future point in time.
The Deputy Chairman: That is correct.
Senator Spivak: That is to say, if it is the wish of the committee.
The Deputy Chairman: I think it is covered, but we will give you a chance.
Senator Spivak: Unless someone else has something, I have some other points.
The Deputy Chairman: Do the members of the research staff understand? The committee wants to meet once again to look at what the actual wording of the report will be.
Senator Kenny: Could it be circulated to us by the end of the week? Is that too soon?
Ms Lynn Myers, Research Officer, Library of Parliament: I am leaving this afternoon to travel with another subcommittee.
Senator Kenny: Next week at some point, then? We will then have the weekend to look at it.
The Deputy Chairman: It depends on whether this is all.
Senator Spivak: It is not all there is.
Senator Kenny: We will then have a chance to see something in writing.
Senator Spivak: I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is a time-honoured way of avoiding amendments.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes. You have made your point, but do not hammer it to death. What is your second point?
Senator Spivak: The second thing is protecting ecosystems beyond boundaries. There are a couple of ideas here. Perhaps there could be a rather "blue-sky" suggestion that there be federal-provincial agreements to facilitate that possibility. The wording is again in the brief from the Canadian Nature Federation:
-- 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.
Perhaps we could perhaps use that also.
The Deputy Chairman: You like that clause as is?
Senator Spivak: I do, with the addition of the suggestion that federal-provincial agreements might be explored. As we heard, this is a major problem.
Senator Kenny: The committee is already on record as supporting this issue. We have said it in previous reports. I do not see any problem in saying it again.
Senator Spivak: Yes, but we had not included the suggestion on federal-provincial agreements.
The Deputy Chairman: Is there anything else?
Senator Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should add something supporting the comment that the minister made with respect to an advisory council as an additional tool, if necessary. I think it is important that that be on the record.
The Deputy Chairman: Maybe we should mention that point as well -- if necessary. Thank you. We will adjourn.
The committee adjourned.