Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Issue 23 - Evidence, October 4, 2000

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-27, respecting the National Parks of Canada, met this day at 5:10 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Mira Spivak (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: We have here, from the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks, Ms Pamela Wright and Ms Stephanie Cairns. Please proceed with your presentation, and then I am sure there will be questions.

Ms Pamela A. Wright, Vice-President, Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks: Madam Chair, Ms Cairns and I will give a summarized version of our brief today and just highlight some of the important points. Thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding a keystone for the implementation of the Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks -- specifically, the amendments to the National Parks Act. Bill C-27 is meant to ensure that we manage national parks so that they do remain "unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." That is the vision first set out by Parliament in 1930. These amendments arise from the work of the Banff Bow Valley Task Force, begun six years ago, and the continued work of our ecological integrity panel, completed last March.

The EI panel concluded that the ecological future of our parks across the entire parks system is at a crossroads. We affirmed the finding of the 1997 State of the Parks Report, which identified significant threats to virtually all of Canada's national parks. Of the 38 parks in existence at that time, all but one reported stresses and significant loss of ecological integrity.

The EI panel concluded that "Each of us has a role in ensuring that our national parks continue to hold their significant places in our landscapes and in our hearts." We call on you, the Senate of Canada, to play a real role in this national effort by passing Bill C-27.

The passage of Bill C-27 would not be sufficient in and of itself to protect the parks system. We also need a reorientation of many park management practices, new scientific skills and knowledge for better management of parks, new partnerships with neighbours in greater park ecosystems, and a sufficient budget to implement those new directions. However, we feel that Bill C-27 creates the clarity of mission and the overall architecture that is a precondition for the success of those other reforms.

We would like now to focus in more detail on the EI panel's mandate, some key recommendations and how Bill C-27 specifically addresses those, as well as the financial resources that are needed for the implementation of our report.

Minister of Canadian Heritage Sheila Copps named the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks in November 1998. It was composed of 11 natural and social scientists and policy experts. Our mandate was to evaluate firsthand the issues that affect the national parks and to advise the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the actions required. A separate panel looked at the issues of outlying commercial accommodations and skiing in the mountain parks. The Banff Bow Valley Task Force had already, in 1986, developed recommendations on issues in the Banff Bow Valley corridor. Our job was to consider the underlying issues affecting all 39 terrestrial parks. We were to consider the fundamental reasons for the growing ecological stresses documented in the biannual state of the park reports.

The EI panel's report in March 2000 concluded that virtually all of our national parks are under threat. If we continue on this path, we risk losing for all time that which makes national parks so special -- their function in protecting ecological and biological processes and biodiversity; their role as centres for research and education; their role as providers of economic value to communities; and their role as providers of recreational, spiritual, cultural, historic and aesthetic benefits that we cherish.

The EI panel's recommendations fall into eight broad categories. First, protecting ecological integrity must be the first priority of all aspects of national parks management, the lens through which all actions and decisions are focused. Our first recommendation on this was that the amendments to the National Parks Act that we are discussing today state this priority clearly and without qualification. We fully support the amendments that have been made to this effect, including a definition for ecological integrity in subclause 2(1). Subclause 8(2) states that "Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks." This flagship amendment has moved the ecological integrity clause from its former place under section 11, the management plan section, to being the minister's first priority and responsibility in all aspects of the management of parks. Clause 11(1) adds a requirement to include a long-term ecological vision for the park, a set of ecological integrity objectives and indicators, and provisions for restoration. It lists the matters that must be addressed in park management plans.

Second, in order to have the right knowledge to manage for ecological integrity, Parks Canada will require greater natural and social science knowledge and capacity. The bulk of the total recommended increase of $328 million is for greatly expanded internal natural and social science capacity and for related programs such as monitoring to understand the increase of stresses at the park-by-park level.

The third major area of our recommendations is an increase in active management in order to maintain and, if necessary, restore ecological components and processes. Subclauses 8(1) and 11(1) of Bill C-27 introduce the key concept of restoration to the National Parks Act for the first time. Given the scale of human influences affecting our national parks, the maintenance of ecosystems in their current state may not be adequate. We need to think about issues such as the reintroduction of native species and processes. The panel recommended a total of $37 million to support site restoration and to expand fire restoration.

Ms Stephanie Cairns, Member, Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks: Our fourth major recommendation was that a role for aboriginal peoples within Canada's national parks must be re-established. This is a complicated issue. We recommended that the process should begin with Parks Canada initiating a process of healing with aboriginal peoples in order to foster the development of relationships based on understanding, trust and respect.

Our fifth recommendation was that strategic partnerships must be developed with park neighbours in order to protect ecosystems beyond the border of national parks. Many of the stresses on the parks currently originate in the larger landscapes around park boundaries. The panel recommended $85 million for the creation of a partnership fund to enable Parks Canada to better work with their neighbours on initiatives in the greater park ecosystems.

We also concluded that human use in national parks must be based on the principle of responsible experience. "Use without abuse" was the slogan we looked to. National parks were created originally for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada, and we felt that they must continue to be places for people to visit and to renew themselves. However, the challenge today, brought on by growing numbers of park users and by more diverse recreational activities, is how to do this while keeping parks unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Bill C-27 addresses this challenge in a number of specific ways, through new powers to cap developments in park communities under subclauses 33(2) and 33(3). These powers build on the outcomes of the Banff Bow Valley Task Force and the Outlying Commercial Accommodation Review Panel. In addition, subclause 14(4) puts a new one-year time limit on having the Governor in Council declare through regulation wilderness areas in parks. That time limit was a recommendation from the EI panel, because the power to declare a wilderness area under section 14(1) has in fact never been used to date.

We also recommended that Parks Canada must communicate better to all Canadians what is valuable about national parks and how Canadians everywhere can contribute to protecting these special places.

Finally, we certainly addressed the issue of how all of these recommendations should be financed. We recommended that Parliament approve substantial new funds, a total of $328 million over five years, to implement our recommendations, but I want to be very clear on what we said about new funding. We were unanimous that money alone would not suffice. First, we need a more supportive management framework, one that would provide crystal clear signals that ecological integrity is the first priority in parks management. The passage of Bill C-27 will be a key element of this framework.

We identified eight other steps that should be taken before the allocation of any additional resources. We understand that the parks agency has made considerable progress in meeting these funding preconditions, and the minister has asked the CEO of the parks agency to report on this progress later this fall. Again, the panel felt that without these initial changes in legislation, organizational structure, planning and accountability, any new money given to the agency for the protection of ecological integrity would be very vulnerable to redirection to other program areas.

We note that you have been very interested in the issue of the establishment of new parks. Clause 5 of Bill C-27 will make this process more speedy and efficient, and we see it as a very valuable amendment. From your conversations with previous witnesses, we see that you have also been interested in the financial implications of new parks establishment. At the moment, funding for the operations of new parks comes from the agency's existing budget. In other words, each new park is now taking money away from the operation of existing parks. This has led to a situation in which the creation of new parks risks affecting the ability to protect the ecological integrity of existing parks. The panel specifically recommended that funding for new park establishment should include an associated increase in base appropriation for subsequent park operations, not only for the establishment costs, as is now the case.

To conclude, we strongly urge you to pass Bill C-27. It is the flagship of a package of reforms meant to ensure long-term ecological integrity in our national parks. It is also the demonstration of Parliament's endorsement of a new direction for our parks. Delay in passing this bill would be a serious setback to the agenda of long-term protection of the national parks.

Senator Taylor: Thank you for a very good, hard-hitting, short report. I want to ask you about what has been called re-wilding, particularly in Alberta. We have always been raised to believe that although God put the parks there and chose to let the federal government operate them, Albertans are able to play in them. Consequently, from our point of view, there is the question of re-wilding various areas. Most are fairly minor and easy to do, but I think we are in kind of a trap with respect to skiing. Have you any recommendation on that? I think you danced around it a bit. Do you recommend using funds to buy back the ski areas?

Ms Wright: That is an excellent question. With respect specifically to ski areas, at the same time that our panel was ongoing, there was a second panel on outlying commercial accommodations, which also had a mandate to make specific recommendations on the ski areas, so our panel did not make specific recommendations in that area.

That having been said, our perspective on the ski areas is that clearly those are historical precedents in the parks. The ski areas that exist in the national parks have existed for many years. In our current way of thinking, we probably would not put ski areas in national parks because of the impacts they cause. However, the panel felt that the removal of those ski facilities at this time would be unjustifiable on historical or economic grounds, and instead we suggested a few key things, notwithstanding the very specific recommendations that the OCA panel would be making on ski areas. One is that the existing ski resorts be treated as nonconforming activities and recognized and managed as such. That means a few things.

While we are not recommending that the facilities be removed, we are recommending that there be no further expansion of those areas. We are also recommending that park facility operators work with Parks Canada to try to curtail activities where a specific activity might be found to be having a specific effect on ecological integrity, and that they work together to try to mitigate or restore some of the functioning for specific places where ski areas might be causing impacts. However, more detailed recommendations on ski areas would come out of the OCA panel recommendations.

Senator Taylor: If you curtail ski expansion and try to decrease their footprint and so on, you might in effect turn a viable industry into a non-viable and unprofitable one. Did anyone play with the idea that perhaps we would be more honest if we said that the government should expropriate those facilities for a fair and reasonable price and let them get out of the way? Your current recommendation puts a great deal of financial hardship on those ski facilities. Who can they sell to? They are in a bad position. Let the state expropriate for a fair value or an arbitrated value and let the government run the ski hills and then it can phase them out as quickly or as slowly as it wants. Have you considered that?

Ms Wright: Because our mandate was to look across the parks system at all the parks, we really did not focus on one specific issue like that in a lot of detail. That is an interesting idea that someone might explore, but we did not look at the financial stability and operation of those ski areas. The OCA panel members might be able to provide more detail. I cannot help you out there, I am afraid.

The Chairman: I have a double-sided supplementary to that. First, it seems to me that there are lots of new ski facilities being developed in British Columbia. I have read of several. Have you looked at the supply of skiing for the demand? Banff can provide a particular experience that is not quite as commercial and that people really value. To your knowledge, do any other ski facilities duplicate that?

Have you looked at this whole question? Perhaps we are asking the wrong people. That is a particular consideration, because if you confiscated or expropriated the ski facilities, many Canadians and many tourists would miss that particular kind of ski experience. Is there someone else who can take up that demand?

Ms Cairns: You are right in suggesting that we are really not the people to ask. We did not explore that question.

As a comment, there has been much focus on the problems in the mountain parks of Canada. We tried to look at all the parks in the system. There are 35 other parks with similar stresses. We are anxious to avoid developing policy based on the most difficult cases; rather, we wanted to do a generic study of the issues across the whole parks system. We did not do specific studies on the mountain parks, but there have been a number of such studies in recent years. Our mandate was to look at all the other parks, which have been ignored over that time period.

The Chairman: We will hold this question and bring it back again.

Senator Christensen: In your studies did you look at how development was handled in parks in other countries, specifically in the U.S. where conditions are similar? How have they dealt with ecological integrity outside the parks? Can we learn any lessons from them?

Ms Wright: That is an excellent point. When the panel started, we thought that having advice from other countries would be very important. We had two ex officio members on the panel. One was in charge of science and the role of ecological integrity at the Washington office of the U.S. National Park Service. The second, a Canadian who had also worked for Parks Canada for many years, was a retired member of the IUCN, the World Conservation Union.

We tried to look at other parks systems. A few key points are important. Canada is a leader in ecological thinking and in policy about the value of our parks. Canada is a leader in legislation as it stands now as well as in proposed changes. In terms of practice, however, many other countries are doing some fairly innovative activities from which we can learn a lot.

The U.S. parks system, for example, does not have the same strong policy and legislative tools for ecological integrity, but it has instilled similar values. Some fairly proactive stances have been taken on restoration or re-wilding activities where there were findings of significant harm at certain facilities. Like us, the U.S. has developed in their parks some historical town sites and facilities that, in retrospect, they may regret. Some significant action has been taken in Yosemite to remove a major road structure that was causing irreparable damage, work that required significant resources. A fairly aggressive stance has also been taken there on the removal of exotic species of plants and animals that are invading national parks and upsetting the natural balance. We did try to draw on those excellent American examples. John Dennis of the U.S. National Park Service was a full member of the panel as we drafted those ideas and profiles into our own recommendations.

Senator Christensen: How successful have their re-wilding programs been? I am thinking specifically of the wolves and the lynx. There have been some unhappy experiences.

Ms Wright: Yes. Some of the high-profile issues have been less successful from a public relations perspective, perhaps because of the more litigious nature of the United States. However, the final judgment has just come down on the Yellowstone area and it says that the wolves will be allowed to stay in that park. The wolves have been successfully reintroducing themselves, regardless of policy and legislative decisions. The lynx species is more difficult to restore, but there have been some good examples. The public policy challenge is to communicate just why one would want to do that.

Senator Adams: My question is for Ms Cairns. You mentioned the participation of aboriginal people in Canada's parks. Are you referring only to parks or do you think the aboriginal peoples should be consulted on other ecological issues outside of parks? Usually we hear about the aboriginal people only when there are issues of burial sites or logging sites.

Ms Cairns: As we went across the country, we observed a stark contrast between the relations with aboriginal peoples in the southern part of Canada, around the older parks, and the relations with aboriginal peoples who live in the Canadian North, where a much more modern approach is being used.

Ultimately many aboriginal rights are or will be established by the courts, and Parks Canada cannot go in a different policy direction. We must deal with the likely outcome of those court decisions by building a better relationship of trust and understanding, particularly with First Nations in the south. Many southern parks have a terrible history during which entire communities were actually expelled.

The panel feels that there is room within the parks for some traditional harvesting practices but that those should be done within the same spirit of commitment to ecological integrity that the entire park is managed under. Those discussions will likely be difficult, but we must begin with healing initiatives in the local communities.

We visited with many First Nations as we went across the country. One panel member who had input is also a local council member at Akwesasne. There has been a departure from traditional thinking on some of these issues. The panel embraces a much more inclusive role for our First Nations within the parks.

Senator Adams: At the beginning of the Parks Canada structure, there was little interaction with the native people. Perhaps Bill C-27 will help to change that. Some aboriginal people need to hunt and to make their living in the parks. Bill C-27 may require some different regulations. Will there be new policies or new rules that will keep people from living off the land and prevent them from getting food for their families? That is my concern. Will the aboriginal people still be able to use the parks freely?

Ms Wright: Senator Adams, we believe that Bill C-27 is a substantial improvement over the existing act in terms of helping to preserve those traditional ways of life. We believe that it is stronger in preserving life ways and helping people living on the land. That said, there is also a series of recommendations that Parks Canada could implement without legislation, at an operational and policy level, that would help preserve those life ways, and the agency is implementing many of those on a case-by-case basis. Our recommendation was that those measures be implemented in a much more widespread way.

Senator Adams: I have no difficulty with rules relating to hunting within the parks, because we have much more land than what is encompassed by the parks.

Senator Banks: Thank you for your presentation. You said a few moments ago that we would have to wait for an answer on that policy question until the OCA panel finishes its report. I have been concerned about language that was presented to us in the past having to do with the overall committee's report. Would you briefly describe how you perceive the relationship between the minister's committee and the policy with respect to the development of policy? What exactly does the minister's committee do?

Ms Cairns: In fact, the panel no longer formally exists. We dissolved in March with the release of the report. We were asked to take on a task that was difficult for insiders to take on, that being to look in from the outside with extensive experience and with strong guidance in the terms of reference that we were given for the types of issues that the minister felt needed to be examined, and to propose advice.

Although we did not expect it, the minister endorsed our report entirely when it was released in March. She has very clearly stated that she wants the panel's report to be fully implemented, and I understand that the process is now underway in Parks Canada to determine how to implement an external report with recommendations into the day-to-day policies, frameworks, operations, et cetera, of the parks agency. That is the stage they are at currently.

Senator Banks: I just wanted to ensure that the government is still making policy.

With regard to re-wilding, I take it that you do not intend that we should start tearing down hotels and the pylons on existing ski operations. However, what do you think might be done with respect to a trail ride operation that was seen to be harming the ecology, as they do? If such an operation has existed for a long time, might you advise restoration that might affect someone's business?

Ms Wright: If I may, I will change your example to rafting companies, as I have firsthand knowledge of a series of such companies in Kluane National Park in the Yukon. In that case, there was a perceived conflict with grizzly bear habitat and safety in terms of movement corridors and access to food, as well as an issue with the safety of people. It was increasingly becoming clear that the two were together in the wrong place at the wrong time. Parks Canada did a series of studies on bear requirements in terms of movement corridors, safe habitat, and feeding areas. The agency did a similar study on people in terms of their safety requirements and the kinds of visitor experience they were seeking.

Recommendations were made to redistribute where people could camp on the Alsek River and how many nights they could spend in each area. In that case, there was no change in the overall number of visitors and no change in the times that people are allowed to go down the river. Rather, the change was in the sequence in which people go down the river, how large the groups can be, and the spacing between groups in order to preserve the visitor experience people seek while maintaining grizzly bear habitat. That was an excellent solution. It changed the nature of the experience but, by understanding both grizzly bear requirements and human requirements, the agency was able to recommend positive changes.

In terms of restoration, we need to undertake more of that kind of research and initiative. Parks Canada does not have the scientific capacity to undertake such studies or to do the restoration that needs to be done in those cases. In some places restoration may have an effect on a specific business, but that business may at the same time be affecting a population of grizzly bears, for example. The goal is to shift the opportunity for the business or shift the way the business works while preserving habitat.

Senator Banks: You mentioned that you might recommend restoration in instances where exotic species of flora and fauna, by which I take it you mean species that did not previously exist there, have found their way into the park. Might that not be a natural process? If we stop it, might we not be getting in the way of exactly what we are about here?

Ms Wright: That is an excellent question, and we drew heavily on the U.S. park experience for an answer. The United States has been addressing the issue of exotic species and has developed a fairly clear protocol for determining when a species is making a natural range extension -- moving with time and climate, et cetera -- versus a species that has come through artificial means into a habitat where it has an opportunistic mechanism and takes over.

An example is racoons in Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. That park had no ground carnivores. Since racoons were introduced into the area, a number of interesting species have been removed, similar to what has happened in New Zealand.

The policy is not to battle all exotic species. It is to make a clear determination of whether is it is a range extension and whether the species is causing irreparable harm or whether it is simply filling a niche that was vacated by a species that has perhaps become extinct.

Senator Banks: In the case of the pine beetle, which is a natural expansion, would it be okay to try to stop it?

Ms Wright: Where a natural species is part of the natural disturbance regime occurring in a park, controlling that species would not necessarily be desirable. The natural disturbance regime is part of the process that drives the evolution and functioning of a park. However, obviously, with parks there is often a consideration of neighbours and activities taking place on surrounding lands. There is similar consideration in the case of wildfire and the effects of allowing the natural process that occurs on park land to have a spillover effect onto land outside the park. Clearly, a case-specific decision must be made for each occurrence.

Senator Taylor: There is the National Trust in England, where people of like-minded interest, like yourselves, raise and donate money to buy out different areas and then wild them. In Canada, our federal income tax laws, and to a lesser extent our provincial laws, allow a farmer or rural landowner to donate the land to the future -- a park perhaps. Has your organization thought about setting up and collecting finances to buy out people within national parks and then donate the land back?

Ms Wright: A portion of that would be beyond our mandate. The issue of restoring lands within the parks as well as lands outside the parks is clearly something the panel focused on as a mechanism that needed to be used more often. There are things that Parks Canada could do with the help of the government to enable that to happen. For lands outside the parks, there are tax incentives to allow farmers and ranchers, for example in the Waterton area of Alberta, to maintain their large acreages, which are much more amenable to providing wildlife habitat requirements than the small subdivision tract development lands. However, those ranchers were pushed out of it because of the cost of property. A recommendation towards tax reform must be considered.

We recommended a $825-million partnership fund that could be used to partner with organizations like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation or Ducks Unlimited to allow that kind of creative partnership. However, we are not taking on that kind of role.

The Chairman: I understood that there were some tax easements -- a policy -- in respect of the surrounding ranch land in Waterton. This committee, under the chairmanship of Senator Carney, made some recommendations. Also, the Nature Conservancy cannot really look at lands inside parks to restore them; is that right? As well, there is the issue of private foundations that do not have an equal tax and are therefore not on a level playing field. Did you make any recommendations in respect of those areas?

Ms Cairns: Our report was actually written before last year's federal budget -- written, but not released. We had strongly supported tax incentives for donations of ecological land that went a bit beyond what actually ended up in the budget. In fact, the budget changes were a good step forward.

The partnership fund is, I heard you say, not very much money. That is true, but Parks Canada does not have any money to put on the table if there is a partnership opportunity. The agency has no money to engage in studies to support research or to identify what would be valuable land, let alone the amount of money that would actually be needed to financially support any land easements or land donations.

There are many sensitivities surrounding the issue of parks expansion. We felt that it was more important for non-government organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation near Waterton, to engage in that discussion about the donation of land, because they have an important role and a different relationship with the local communities. That is very much part of our vision. We need to think of parks not as "islands in the stream," but rather as integrated into the broader landscape. The issue of lands that are actually inside parks is not one that was ever raised for us. However, I would note that organizations such as the Nature Conservancy have played a very interesting role in facilitating new park establishment. For example, in the establishment of Grasslands National Park, the Nature Conservancy acted as a form of conduit for the donation of lands from the private sector to the government.

The Chairman: I have a question that we could put into our report to the minister. Do you think it is a good idea to look at tax changes that would enable private foundations? We could incorporate that into our advice to the minister. Perhaps you could give us some ideas.

Ms Cairns: We would support any recommendation that supported the donation of lands for conservation in broader park ecosystems. I am familiar with the piece that you are talking about regarding the private foundations. If there is a way to have them participate more in this whole donation agenda, that would be important. The context to be presented should be that the value per dollar that the government invests is so high for what they get back that they cannot buy that money dollar for dollar. They are giving a tax incentive, and for a portion of a dollar they are receiving not only protection but also buy-in by the local community. That is itself invaluable in the longer-term agenda for the parks.

The Chairman: We will certainly utilize the information that you provided.

Our next witness is from Jasper Tourism and Commerce.

Mr. Roy C. Everest, Vice-President, Jasper Tourism and Commerce: Jasper Tourism and Commerce represents approximately 200 businesses that operate in the Town of Jasper in Jasper National Park, Alberta. As Jasper currently lacks a formal municipal government, Jasper Tourism and Commerce fulfils the tourism, economic development and marketing functions within Jasper.

Many associate the word "business" with large, faceless corporations. Although we have larger corporations as part of our organization, the majority of our members -- the majority of businesses in Jasper -- are small, family-operated holdings that have operated for many years. My own business has been in existence since 1911, and my family has operated it since 1956. We are considered relative newcomers to Jasper. I am the second generation to work in the family business, and we have a third generation currently in training.

Generally, our organization is supportive of Bill C-27. We recognize and support the need for ecological protection. We consider ourselves to be good stewards of the park and goodwill ambassadors to both Canadian and foreign visitors alike.

Our sole concern with Bill C-27 is that it is about to make a travesty of the democratic ideals that all Canadians take for granted. Bill C-27, as proposed, will deny basic democratic rights to the 5,000 residents of Jasper. Clauses 9 and 35 of the bill, taken together, mean that there will never be any sort of effective and responsible municipal government in the Town of Jasper. Input and participation in the municipal decision-making process is being removed from the Town of Jasper and from those who will be most affected by these decisions. It is being moved directly to Ottawa.

Prior versions of the National Parks Act have recognized the ability of residents of Jasper to become a municipality at some point in the future. Jasper has been negotiating with Parks Canada for at least 30 years regarding some form of empowered local government. As late as 1996, Parks Canada's own documents considered local municipal government to be a good thing; it seemed it was merely a formality and a matter of time until the details were worked out. However, shortly after that, we got a new minister and local government was not considered to be a good idea anymore.

Before I move on, I want to set the record straight on something. A few witnesses have stated previously that in 1986 Jasper voted against local government. That is not the whole truth. The referendum question was phrased as follows: Do you want the town committee to negotiate or to continue negotiations towards a form of local government? In retrospect, the question was poorly phrased, and many people at the ballot box thought that if they answered "yes" they would be permitting secret negotiations. They were concerned that they would be giving up their ability to approve their own democratic municipal model at some point in the future. Despite that, the No side won that referendum vote only narrowly.

Why is local government important to Jasper? I was born and raised in Jasper. As a local, I must say that Parks Canada does not do a good job as town manager. It does an excellent job when it looks at the big picture. I do not believe that Parks Canada gets nearly the praise it deserves as a national agency. In the management of the 10.9 million hectares that constitute Jasper National Park, Parks Canada does a great job, often with inadequate resources. However, in its own documents, Parks Canada acknowledges what a poor manager it is of the mere 130 hectares that constitute the Town of Jasper. Bill C-27 would enshrine this unworkable system of management as a legislative ideal for Jasper.

Democracy is a big word. It means different things to different people. In Jasper, it is not some hypothetical yearning. We do not want democracy just because every one else has it. It is a question of practical considerations. Democracy helps communities run smoothly.As long as we do not have it, we cannot solve real problems at a local level. As long as we do not have it, the fabric of our community is at risk.

Let us talk about practical considerations. In my mind, one of the biggest benefits of democracy is accountability for decisions. Accountability is the biggest thing that has been lacking in Jasper. Mr. Ireland of the Jasper Town Committee spoke previously about a decision made in Ottawa to buy a new emergency vehicle for the town. When it arrived, it was too big to fit inside the fire hall because the person who had ordered it had no knowledge of local circumstances.

That kind of thing goes on all the time. Two weeks ago, road crews were out painting crosswalks and stop lines on the road surfaces, a normal municipal function. One week ago, new road surfaces were being installed over the same surfaces that had just been marked.

That type of waste and inefficiency is endemic. There is no accountability for those decisions. Yet Bill C-27 not only enshrines this type of government as the ideal in national parks, it goes further to micro manage community planning. For the first time ever, arbitrary commercial square footage caps are being proposed. Why?

Jasper has 130 hectares. Our town boundaries have been set since the 1970s. There are a total of five commercial lots that can be developed. The federal government not only supplies the control of land, but also controls the use of that land through zoning and building regulations. These commercial square footage caps will expand an already swollen bureaucracy, further confuse the state of development law, and take away all flexibility.

This system will make things worse. Under subclause 33(4), once the community plan is prepared, it is added to the act under schedule 4. The schedule cannot be amended without changing the act. Therefore, if a change to zoning on a piece of property is desired, let us say to put a daycare centre or a library downtown, the National Parks Act must be amended, which will probably take about 30 years. That is hardly an example of local government at its finest. Prudent land use planning should not be written in stone.

Why are these changes being introduced? Parks Canada says that it is to curb development that is out of control. Poppycock. Development in Jasper has never been a big issue as our land base is small and directly controlled by the federal government. In short, we cannot grow. There is no way we could ever become a large, uncontrolled giant like Banff. Our potential for local government is being stripped away for purely financial reasons.

In the Banff incorporation agreement, the federal government gave up all rights of taxation, direct or indirect, for an annual payment of $550,000 from the Town of Banff. In Jasper in 1999, Parks Canada collected about $5 million in municipal taxation and spent around $2.7 million in operations. That is just in the town. Those figures do not include campgrounds, gate receipts or any other form of revenue. In other words, Parks Canada netted over $2 million from a town one half the population and one quarter the area of Banff. The Jasper economic engine, if you will, is one tenth that of Banff. Towns are not supposed to be cash cows. Almost every town has mill rates, except us. We pay a sum that has no relation to operating costs.

Let us take this one step further. Why is money so important to Parks Canada? In 1994, Parks Canada had a national budgets of around $450 million to operate all national parks and historic sites throughout the country. It collected about $40 million in revenue. In response to budget cutbacks that were happening at the time and with the best of motives, Parks Canada negotiated a deal whereby it would give about $120 million back to Treasury Board in exchange for obtaining an agency that would operate at arm's length from the government and that would be able to keep all revenue it received.

It was thought that the agency would not only make up this $120 million by raising fees but also be able to exceed it. Someone must have miscalculated, because the best Parks Canada has ever been able to do is earn about $80 million. On an average basis they have been short, if you will, about $50 million per year since 1994.

From where is that shortfall being made up? Looking only at Jasper National Park, in 1986 Parks Canada spent about $18 million throughout the entire park; about $6 million of that was on infrastructure. In 1996, it spent about $11 million in Jasper National Park, including about $2 million on infrastructure. The budget is being balanced by cutting services and ignoring infrastructure.

Under the Parks Canada Agency Act, money for new parks is to come from existing parks. That is why money is so important to Parks Canada. The people of Jasper are being sacrificed for reasons of pure economic servitude. If this legislation passes in its current form, the Government of Canada will be telling the residents of Jasper that they are not the equals of the residents of Banff, let alone the rest of Canadians. We will, in fact, become the serfs of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In an age when the equality of all Canadian citizens is enshrined by law, this legislation seemingly is attempting to create a small group of second-class citizens.

What can we do about this unhappy state of affairs once this legislation passes? Normally, in a democracy, if you are unhappy you can petition, lobby or otherwise attempt to make change through local government. If you are still unhappy, you can still lobby for change or vote the government out. However, given that our local government is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, we do not have those same options. A judge of the federal court is about the only arbiter of decisions of this nature and the only way to get any sort of satisfaction. That is neither effective nor productive government. For business, it means that we constantly operate in a costly environment of fear and apprehension.

Thankfully, there is an easy solution to this. We are asking that you keep the existing section 8.2 of the act, which will permit the negotiation of a form of local government in the future. This simple change will preserve the democratic options currently addressed in the act.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are our last hope. Jasper is one small voice amongst many. The Senate has always been the champion of the small voices. Please help us keep the spirit of democracy alive in Jasper.

Senator Taylor: You said that you had a referendum, that the wording was not right, and that the people who wanted local government lost. You seem to be sounding a bit like Milosevic. You do not like the results of an election, but you still want to go ahead. Would the answer not be to go back and ask the people again, perhaps with a clearer question? Are you pushing to have us allow local government without going to a referendum?

Mr. Everest: We very much want to keep the option alive. The amendments to the National Parks Act that allowed for the ability to negotiate a form of local government have been around for a long time, and the town has been negotiating for a long time.

Senator Taylor: You do not like the idea of the public voting again?

Mr. Everest: We would very happily take this to a referendum on the question. What we want is the ability to keep that option alive. We want to be able to have that vote on local government and to have that option.

Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.

Senator Banks: As a supplementary to that, would you read the referendum question again, please?

Mr. Everest: I do not have the complete text of it here.

Senator Banks: I thought you read it just a minute ago.

Mr. Everest: That was actually the first election I ever had the ability to vote in, some years ago. I am trying to remember the wording. The wording was to this effect: Do you want the Jasper Town Committee, our elected committee that gives advice to Parks Canada, to negotiate or to continue to negotiate towards a form of local government?

Senator Banks: That sounds pretty clear to me. How can one misinterpret that?

Mr. Everest: At the time, it was interpreted that it was giving licence to the then-elected group to conduct negotiations in secret and that the community would not have a chance to approve the final form.

Senator Banks: I have two other questions that are related, and they have to do with the question of local government. First, we understand that land use cost proposals have been made to Jasper residents, which would see them, both in residential and commercial senses, paying land use costs, or whatever they are called, of about 15 per cent less than the town of Banff. Is that not okay?

Second, the improvement district, as it presently exists, now looks after social and recreational activities. The improvement district has, as we understand it, pretty well agreed that Parks Canada should retain control of land use designations and zoning regulations and things like that. We also understand that Parks Canada has made to the town of Jasper -- I say that colloquially -- an offer that would see the delivery of municipal services, which are the only things left -- things such as buying fire engines and ensuring that there is a proper garage for them, and road construction over top of new painting -- undertaken by the local community. It is, as I understand it, a form of local government, although not municipal government in the normal sense of the word. The situation is complicated because it means involving the Province of Alberta, since the only municipal act under which one could incorporate exists in the province, but, as I understand it, there is a form of local government on the table now.

I am wondering what is wrong with those offers, both with respect to their costs, which we understand are 15 per cent lower than those at Banff, and with respect to the delivery of municipal services by local community, funded by Parks Canada but delivery determination made by the local community?

Mr. Everest: To answer your first question regarding the proposal, I am afraid you have caught me rather by surprise with that. I found out about it only today. I understand that the cost will be 15 per cent less, community versus community, for a community that is one half the size and approximately one quarter the area. Without having access to the bits and pieces of the actual plan, I am afraid it is very difficult for me to comment on that.

Senator Banks: Then we will talk about your business. Your family operates a business. If you see that the land costs of that business during the remaining term of your lease will be, once the new rate comes into place in 2002, somewhere around 15 per cent lower than those in Banff and that subsequently to that, in 2003, which is also part of proposal, the increase in land use will be governed by and be restricted to the level of the consumer price index increase, is that not okay? I am just talking about your personal business, not about the town.

Mr. Everest: Actually, even for my business, we have always maintained that the way Parks Canada does its land rental is completely and utterly flawed. In almost any other community, you figure out what it costs to run the community, you figure out the value of the land and you apportion it up into a mill rate, so your community costs are being covered. Banff still does that, except that it has a flat payment to the federal government that it calculates as being the price.

Senator Banks: But other communities are not in national parks. The comparison being made, however odious it may be, is between Jasper and Banff. That is the comparison. My question is this, then: Is the land use cost to operate a business in Jasper -- on average 15 per cent lower than it is to operate the same square footage business in Banff -- not a good starting place when the new rates come into place in 2002 and then are restricted thereafter to increases in the consumer price index? That is not unaffordable, is it?

Mr. Everest: Actually, many businesses are finding it extremely difficult to absorb the costs that were proposed for the year 2000. That there is an extra take that has nothing whatsoever to do with the running of the town and that is not even a special payment for the privilege of living in a park is something many in Jasper find quite offensive because it bears absolutely no relation to the cost of the community.

Most people would say they are very encouraged by the fact that Parks Canada is putting this deal forward. Personally, I am quite pleased that they are now linking it to something other than the national park. For example, linking increases in land rental to the CPI is a great idea because it is an artificial situation that exists in Jasper. The federal government assesses land rents based on the theory that there is a free and open market, but there is not. The federal government controls the entire supply of land. Basic laws of supply and demand just push the price of land up, except there are not that many times that a piece of property actually sells, because, as I have said before, most operations are small, family-held operations. If individuals come in and decide that they just have to be in the park and that they will make it worthwhile for someone for that opportunity, then everyone suffers and it becomes more and more unaffordable. We think that our community should be like other communities.

Senator Banks: The comparison to the annual $550,000 payment by the Town of Banff for land use is not a fair one because property owners in Banff also pay municipal taxes, et cetera. I am talking about a cost to my house or to my business in Jasper that would be, on average, as we understand it, 15 per cent lower than the comparable undertaking in Banff. Is that unfair?

Mr. Everest: I misunderstood the proposal. I understood that the Town of Jasper would be paying 15 per cent less than the Town of Banff. Without having actual access to that document and a chance to observe it, I would just be wildly guessing as to its meaning.

Senator Banks: I hope I am right that, on average, my house or my business in Jasper would pay 15 per cent less than one in Banff. I think that is correct.

Please go to the second part about the delivery of municipal services. Let us call the improvement district the "town council" for colloquial purposes. The Jasper Town Committee and the improvement district's elected officers are one and the same. Is that correct?

Mr. Everest: That is true.

Senator Banks: Suppose the town council deals with recreational and social matters and suppose it provides municipal services to the town of Jasper, with the decisions being made at the community level. What then would any resident of Jasper have to complain about?

Mr. Everest: My answer may seem at first to be circuitous, but I am trying to be as direct as possible. Let us think of everything that a municipality can do as a basket of services. Parks Canada historically has wanted to retain that power for itself, except that it does not want to exercise the services in the basket. Parks Canada wants to assume control but it does not want to take responsibility for the services in the basket. That leads to bizarre situations, because municipalities usually do such a myriad of diverse tasks. Many civic organizations will step in and try to take up the power vacuum created when Parks Canada is unwilling to take on certain civic functions.

My organization, Jasper Tourism and Commerce, has more civic responsibilities than any other chamber of commerce in Alberta. We privately operate and fund the winter lighting programs, the tourist information centre, the published local area guides and visitor maps. Most municipalities would have some budget allotment for those services. Because Parks Canada does not want to step into the power vacuum, other groups step forward to provide basic services.

The improvement district is similar. The Alberta provincial government has gone through many reorganizations in terms of health care delivery. It was proposed recently that the Jasper hospital services actually be shut down and moved to Hinton, a small town one hour's drive east of Jasper. Normally, the town council would step up to fight such a proposal. Our group asked Parks Canada whether, as the municipal government of Jasper, it had a contingency plan to take over the hospital. The agency's answer was that it does not do that.

Our manpower centre was moved 500 kilometres north because of a reorganization within Canada manpower. The locals fought it. We told Parks Canada that one of its civic functions was to organize a similar manpower centre; it again said that that was not a Parks Canada responsibility. Parks Canada tries to avoid these responsibilities as often as possible, yet it does not want to put in place the tools needed for effective operations. So many different things come up on a regular basis. It is very hard to say that there is nothing left. There is always something lurking out there that needs to come forward.

Senator Banks: Hospitals are not the business of municipal governments or the federal government.

Senator Adams: You say you have been involved in tourism for quite a few years. Do you have any statistics at hand? How busy is your area? How many skiers and hikers do you see in a winter? How many people visit Jasper National Park annually? Is business going up or down? Do you expect a big drop in visitor numbers after we pass this bill? If this bill drastically affects the freedom of the tourists, are you afraid they will choose to go somewhere else?

We visited the parks four or five years ago when Pat Carney was chairing the committee, and we spoke with the surrounding municipalities. People were concerned about increasing development. Bill C-27 will set out the boundaries and prevent further development. How do you feel about that as a businessman? Do you expect business to go down?

Mr. Everest: I was very concerned about the earlier talk regarding restoration of lands in the parks. I really do not know why that would be desirable or in the national interest. Our residents provide what I would call a strategic national service by allowing Parks Canada to fulfil its mandate. We provide the facilities that allow tourists to visit and enjoy the parks. The Parks Canada mandate has always been to dedicate the parks of Canada to the people of Canada for their use and enjoyment and for preservation unto future generations.

Senator Banks: They shall be unimpaired.

Mr. Everest: Thank you. There is no conflict between use and enjoyment on one side and unimpairment for future generations on the other, as we see it. Historically, our organization has looked to be allies with Parks Canada. Both of our organizations have everything to gain and nothing to lose by mutual cooperation. We are extremely proud that, with Parks Canada, we were one of the pioneers of the heritage tourism strategy. The town does not want to encroach on issues of land use and development and environmental concerns. We agree that those are national park matters and that they should stay that way. However, matters of purely local concern ought to be handled at the local level. The community should be able to look after purely municipal affairs because it can do it effectively, accountably and in a manner with which all Canadians are familiar.

We are just here to have this legislation recognize that municipal government is not a bad idea. It can be a good idea. It is achievable and workable within the context of a national park. If this legislation dismisses municipal government entirely, it is a bad thing for both the park and the town. I am sorry; I seem to have diverted from your original question.

Senator Adams: We have heard other witnesses who have worked on behalf of the municipality, some for many years. I wonder whether, if this bill is passed, such people will still want to run for municipal offices. They may just give up because the council has no real control and because only Parks Canada can make decisions. It might be considered useless to elect a counsellor in the municipality. In my view, everything would go according to the regulations in the park. How do you feel about that for the future?

Mr. Everest: The advisory committee members are the representatives of the improvement district, but they also have the advisory role within Parks Canada. Even though they have maintained a cooperative working relationship with Parks Canada, that role has been extremely rocky at times. In matters of a purely local nature, Parks Canada is free to ignore their advice and act completely opposite to that advice, much to the chagrin of the locales. Our elected town committee tries to respect the views of the community at large. It is extremely frustrating for both the town and the community when issues that are clearly local in nature and not in the national interest receive no input from Parks Canada.

The Deputy Chairman: Waterton is not that much different from the other end of the province -- perhaps a softer climate with warmer breezes, but it is a national park -- and the people there seem quite happy without a local government. Would you explain that? Has democracy not progressed as far in Waterton, or are there different problems?

Mr. Everest: My apologies, Senator Taylor, but I missed the first part of your question.

The Deputy Chairman: Waterton Lakes National Park is very similar to Jasper in that it is a national park. It is as far south of Banff as you are north of Banff, and yet they do not want local government. Could you explain why that is so?

Mr. Everest: The two communities are more different than they are similar in that Waterton is a highly seasonal community. It is a summer community -- summer operations. Their year-round population is approximately 20 or 30 caretakers. In Jasper, on the other hand, we have a full year-around community of 4,600 people. The only parks community that is at all comparable to Jasper is Banff. We are the only ones astride major national transportation routes, providing important services for that cross-country traffic. We are the only ones that have a full, large, year-round community with a history of being a full, large, year-round community.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Everest, what kind of business are you in?

Mr. Everest: Our family has a menswear shop and a ski shop. In the summertime we cater to the needs of the summer traveller, and in the winter we enjoy skiing.

The Deputy Chairman: Which season provides the best dollar value?

Mr. Everest: Definitely the summer provides the best.

The Deputy Chairman: We will certainly consider your information in our final submission.

Our next witness, from the Canadian Nature Federation, is Ms Christie Spence. Where are you from, Ms Spence?

Ms Christie Spence, Northern Wildlands Coordinator, Canadian Nature Federation: I grew up in Ottawa, ran away for a while, and then came back.

Senator Banks: Did you run away to the North?

Ms Spence: Yes, I went to the Yukon -- Kluane National Park, in fact.

Perhaps I should explain my presence here, instead of the more customary presence of Mr. McNamee. He will be taking a new position outside our organization at the end of the month, and we felt it was more appropriate that someone who is staying on with the CNF make this presentation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

Our primary message is that the Canadian Nature Federation fully supports Bill C-27 and urges the Senate of Canada to expedite its passage without amendment. As some of you may know, the Canadian Nature Federation is a national conservation organization with over 40,000 members and supporters across the country. On July 13, 2000, our national membership unanimously passed a resolution at our annual general meeting in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, calling on the Senate of Canada to pass Bill C-27 to ensure the maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity in all parks.

There are several parts of Bill C-27 that we would like to address specifically. One of the more important aspects of this bill is that it finally provides formal legal protection to six national parks and reserves that are currently outside the legislative protection of the act. These parks -- Pacific Rim, Gros Morne, Grasslands, Aulavik, Wapusk and Sirmilik -- protect impressive wilderness landscapes and critical wildlife habitat. The lands and waters within those six parks account for almost 20 per cent of all areas preserved in Canada's national parks system.

We trust that this committee is particularly pleased that Bill C-27 finally protects Grasslands as North America's first grasslands national park. In fact, after meeting with the local residents of Val Marie, Saskatchewan, this committee made the following recommendation in its 1996 report, "Protecting Places and People": "As a priority, the federal government should legislate the boundaries of Grasslands National Park." In reporting on its visit to Grasslands National Park, this committee noted that the people of Val Marie, Saskatchewan, stated:

...the site should be officially proclaimed a national park. They need this reassurance of the official commitment to the Park before any related economic development will go ahead. The local people feel that once the Park is proclaimed, the business community will be much more likely to invest in their region.

The Canadian Nature Federation supports the new streamlined process for park establishment contained in Bill C-27. In 1996, the Auditor General of Canada concluded that the process for adding new parks to the National Parks Act was "cumbersome." He recommended to Parliament that the act should be amended to "allow the federal government to add new national parks or enlarge existing ones through a streamlined legislative process, without having to introduce legislation in Parliament."

With reference to ecological integrity, the Canadian Nature Federation fully supports the current wording within Bill C-27 -- wording that was adopted by the Standing Senate Committee on Canadian Heritage and in the House of Commons. The current wording reflects the recommendations made by the federal EI panel and by the CNF in our testimony before the House committee reviewing the bill. Also, this wording finally reflects the intent of the 1979 and 1995 versions of Parks Canada's policy documents, which after public consultation clearly stated that the protection of ecological integrity was the main concern in all park management decisions.

The Canadian Nature Federation is especially concerned with funding considerations around this bill. New money is required to meet government commitments to establish new national parks and marine conservation areas and to restore the ecological health of Canada's 39 national parks. We urge this committee to recommend that the next federal budget provide adequate, stable funding for new national parks, and to implement the recommendations of the EI panel.

The Canadian Nature Federation, along with a range of environmental groups in the Green Budget Coalition, is recommending that the federal government allocate $514 million over the next five years for new and existing national parks. More specifically, we recommend, over the next five years, $186 million to negotiate, create and operate eight new national parks and three new national marine conservation areas; and $328 million to reverse the decline in health of park ecosystems by implementing the recommendations of the ecological integrity panel.

Parks Canada is currently negotiating for new parks without any stable source of new funding to pay for new park agreements. To pay for its last four new parks, Parks Canada took money from the budgets of existing parks.

Virtually every national park reports significant and increasing stress from human activities, both inside and outside national parks. To address these threats, the government promised in March 2000 to implement the Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. The panel concluded, among other things, that new money -- $328 million -- is needed to restore the health of the parks. The panel also concluded that the raiding of individual park budgets for new parks must stop. However, it is significant to note that it did not recommend that the creation of new national parks should stop because of the shortfall in funding, and it did not suggest that the government should focus on fixing existing parks to the exclusion of the new parks agenda. Instead, the panel recommended that the federal government work to complete the national parks system and that it allocate new monies, over and above the $328 million, to fund new park planning, negotiation and establishment.

At our annual general meeting this past summer, our membership passed the following resolution:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Canadian Nature Federation call on the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and the federal Cabinet to allocate new monies in the next federal budget for the negotiation, establishment and protection of national parks, and to implement the recommendations of the Ecological Integrity Panel.

We urge the members of this committee, in addition to passing Bill C-27, to publicly recommend that the federal government provide new funds for the establishment and management of Canada's existing and proposed national parks. Both funding streams are an absolute necessity. We cannot afford to lose unprotected areas that may soon become part of our national parks system. Nor can we afford to lose the ecological and cultural areas of our existing parks.

We express our full support for Bill C-27 and for the Senate of Canada expediting passage of Canada's National Parks Act. Clearly, the federal government and most parties in the House of Commons drew on their collective wisdom and cooperated to strengthen and produce a bill that provides an excellent foundation on which to manage our growing national parks system. We urge you to put this foundation in place.

To conclude, the Canadian Nature Federation respectfully recommends that this Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources pass, without amendment, Bill C-27 and work to ensure that it achieves Royal Assent as soon as possible before the federal election is called.

Senator Prud'homme: We are having an election?

Ms Spence: Whenever it may be. We would not presume to know that.

Second, we recommend to the federal government that it announce in the federal budget any funds both for the establishment of new national parks to meet the government's commitment to expand and complete the national parks system and for the full implementation of the recommendations of the EI panel to restore and maintain the health of Canadian national parks.

Finally, given the events of the past few days, the Canadian Nature Federation feels that it is imperative to acknowledge the solid and quiet contribution of the late Honourable Pierre Elliot Trudeau to Canada's parks system. His various governments are responsible for originating plans to establish at least 15 of our current 39 parks. Bill C-27 will finally secure parks such as Gros Morne, Pacific Rim and Grasslands as part of Mr. Trudeau's legacy. His governments and his cabinets secured and approved the initial agreements for those parks. The establishment of our next national park relates back to a program to create new northern national parks launched by Mr. Trudeau's government in 1978. Supporters of national parks owe Mr. Trudeau a debt of gratitude. We wanted to express our gratitude today.

Senator Christensen: What is your organization's view on the limited harvesting that is part of some of the First Nations land claim agreements in national parks?

Ms Spence: Do you mean hunting?

Senator Christensen: Harvesting, in general, whether hunting or berry harvesting or whatever.

Ms Spence: We are supportive of traditional aboriginal hunting in addition to sustained activities for non-aboriginal members who are part of communities that would be affected, in particular by new national parks. We are very supportive of that with the understanding that the ecological integrity is of paramount importance to the parks, and also to those communities. In our view, the communities, particularly northern communities that are negotiating new national parks, are interested in having national parks for the principle reason of protecting some of their traditional resources. We view it as compatible.

Senator Adams: You have asked for quite a lot of money for parks -- over $300 million. It would be only $150 million if we pass this bill. How do you expect that they would get another $150 million from the government?

Ms Spence: The establishment of new national parks and the completion of the national parks system, by which we mean having a park represented in each of Canada's 39 natural regions, has been a commitment of both Conservative and Liberal governments since the late 1980s. It was in the Green Plan and the Liberal Red Book commitments. We understand that it is a governmental priority and one that matters substantially to Canadians.

It does seem like a lot of money. I do not think that an NGO has ever asked for $500 million dollars before. It is, however, spread over five years. It is broken down into a number of initiatives. We view it as a long-term investment in nature protection and protection of species at risk. It is unclear at the moment as to how species at risk might be protected on federal lands outside of national parks. We view this money as an investment in aboriginal communities and rural communities and northern communities, one that will bring multifold its investment back to those communities and to the government. Although it does seem like a lot of money, it is spread over five years. It would address a range of issues. Eight new national parks and three new marine conservation areas would be provided for $186 million over five years. When the figure is broken down, I think the entire $514 million works out to approximately $20 in tax returns to voting Canadians over five years.

Senator Adams: It is difficult for me, because Parks Canada was putting boundaries on the people and their businesses in the parks. People cannot plan on future business. Meanwhile, you want more area of protected environment. Some of those businesses have been operating for many years, especially at Jasper and others. There is a lot of money flowing around that.

You are asking for more money from Treasury Board. You want the minister to get more money. The government is saying that there is no more to spend. It is saying that it does not want more tourism but would rather protect the parks. I do not know where the money will come from. How do you get more money?

I have been up at the place where soapstone rocks have been picked up for the last 10 years. I was talking to a mining company that is wondering where a park will be in the future.

The local people have a problem if the land is a park or goes to the new mining company in the future. It is very difficult when people say they want more money and in the meantime must they protect the animals.

Ms Spence: I think the point about the mountain parks was made several times today. Those parks are unique cases in the system. Other groups, particularly the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, have looked at those issues, especially tourism, town site development and economic opportunities within national parks. I cannot offer much more on those except to say that I do believe that they are different cases.

Some parks were established over 100 years ago, like Jasper and Banff. It is my understanding that in the case of Wager Bay there is fairly strong community support for the establishment of that park, which has been 28 years in the making, I think. Hopefully, we will see that park soon. There have been negotiations for local people to be able to continue their traditional lifestyles there. It is also my understanding that the park might not preclude considerations for mineral access at Wager Bay.

Senator Adams: I know that they have been working on it for the past 10 years. After Wager Bay was set out, another large amount of nickel was found. The company wanted part of the park reserved for mining, but the government said no. There is 80 per cent unemployment in some of those communities. The park will create only two jobs, but if the mine were opened, the whole community would have jobs.

Senator Banks: I should just like to elicit a comment from you. My question is along the same lines as the question that Senator Adams just asked, but with respect more to the mountain parks -- same question, different context. The Senate is now dealing with two bills. Bill C-5 deals with the establishment of the Canadian tourism commission, whose business it is to generate tourism more efficiently by spending money more efficiently than has been the case in the past. At least that is the intent. We have that bill over there. Then, over here, we have Bill C-27. Some supporters of Bill C-27 say that we ought to "demarket," with respect to their tourism use, certain of those heavily travelled areas of Canada's national parks. I find it a strange dichotomy for us to be contemplating both of those bills at the same time. Would you comment on that, from the standpoint of your organization?

Ms Spence: I would not want to be misconstrued or have our organization misconstrued as people who view tourism as inappropriate in parks. Certainly parks were created for the enjoyment of people, among other reasons. We certainly do encourage appropriate use within parks. I spent a couple of years living outside a national park and I was in the park all the time.

That there are tourism opportunities in the vicinity of national parks is often overlooked, it seems. Some of the new parks do not already have communities within them, and we would really encourage the development of communities as gateways to the parks, but not have the development actually within the parks. Prince Edward Island National Park is going through this dilemma. Being a maritime province, P.E.I. is in difficulty economically. One of the island's main sources of income is tourism, but there is concern for that park. That park receives 30,000 visitors per square kilometre every year, and that is clearly inappropriate and unsustainable.

We would encourage appropriate use and take up the EI panel's mantra of "use without abuse." We would certainly encourage appropriate tourism development and compatible tourism development in the vicinity of national parks, but I am not sure we need to encourage tourism development within the national parks themselves. If it is not to demarket national parks, it is to try to present the message to visitors that the parks are special places and are there for many reasons, one of which is the enjoyment of Canadians and others, but another is the protection of the wildlife resources that are disappearing everywhere else. I assume that visitors to national parks are looking for a wilderness experience and would understand that there need to be limits in order to preserve that experience.

Senator Mira Spivak (Chairman) in the Chair.

The Chairman: To follow up on that, let me ask about the Pacific Rim trail, which is a beautiful place. People book their time in there. I presume that that has worked out all right. If people just came in hordes, they would ruin it. It is like the cod situation. The cod had to be fished because we needed jobs, but now we have no cod and no jobs. If we do not have the parks, we will not have the tourism. Do you think the Pacific Rim arrangement has worked out well?

Ms Spence: I have heard people say that there are so many people on that trail anyway that it is not the wilderness experience they had hoped it would be. I think the intent is good. The difficulty with some of those very small parks, such as Pacific Rim and Prince Edward Island, is that they are so small and yet popular. For a number of our parks across the system, we can mitigate and manage some of the human use. We can have areas that have much more intense visitor use, but then we can also use the wilderness designation provided in the National Parks Act to ensure that very important ecological places have much more protection. I would hope that, in a number of other parks, similar accommodation for heavy visitor use could be made where visitor use could be managed and its impacts mitigated. In other places, there needs to be more careful consideration of visitor use.

The Chairman: Why are there too many people on the Pacific Rim trail? Is it because of the demand for money, or is the trail just not being scheduled properly? What is the reason, do you know?

Ms Spence: Surprisingly, the ecological integrity mandate has been in the act for over a decade, but I think that, as an organization, Parks Canada has felt a lot of pressure, particularly due to funding cutbacks, to generate revenue. The agency has perceived that it has a dual mandate of being a tourism generator, particularly in places where parks are a very important source of revenue, as well as having the protection mandate.

We are very encouraged by the report on ecological integrity and by the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has embraced that report. We hope there will be funding that can support research and mitigation measures and partnerships. Perhaps there will even be a source of funding that could help develop tourism in gateway communities and outside of parks; that would relieve some of the pressure. I think funding would go a long way in helping that.

The Chairman: That is a good argument for more funding.

Senator Taylor: I have two short questions. I note you are congratulating the government for the creation of a grasslands park. I was born and raised in shortgrass country. This is technical question. For grassland to develop, do you not need something grazing it? It used to be buffalo. If it is not grazed, grassland gets out of hand; lightning starts it on fire and it becomes a problem. What are they doing to make a grasslands park really a grasslands park?

Ms Spence: I am not sure. I am not familiar with the management practices there. The bill as currently worded would certainly enable that park, once it is under the act, either to mimic natural processes if they are not there or to allow for grazing, whether by restoring native species or by allowing fire regimes to re-establish, which is very important. A very important part of the bill is the addition of the phrase "restoration for ecological integrity."

Senator Taylor: TI did not expect an Ottawa person to know about a grazing lease.

Ms Spence: I have never been to the prairies so I cannot be of much help.

Senator Taylor: That is all right. I do not know much about Ottawa parks.

My second question is more to the point. You say we should spend money making a better parks department. In your calculations, were you putting in any funds for re-wilding or for buying out businesses in the parks?

Ms Spence: In our submissions to Finance and to this committee and to others, in terms of the dollar figures that we have estimated for all aspects relating to ecological integrity, we have used the EI panel's report; we have just lifted that table right out of the panel's report. A number of line items in there speak to restoration efforts in particular. We know the panel had some excellent representatives here earlier, and certainly they were not recommending tearing things down or booting people out, but they were looking at finding ways through research and cooperative partnerships to try to restore the natural balance within those parks. We fully support that.

Senator Taylor: Perhaps in our recommendations we might suggest that the private sector, so much of which lives in Toronto and Montreal and down east here, might want to throw some money into the pot to re-wild some of these areas. For every dollar the private sector puts in, perhaps the federal government could put in a dollar, and then we could buy back the areas. It is very easy here to recommend spending millions to buy country back, but perhaps the private sector should put its money where its mouth is.

Ms Spence: There are several options. Groups such as People for Parks, for example, are associated with various parks. They do very good work. Those groups are either non-profit or private, and they work alongside the parks and help to leverage funds and acquire adjacent lands and do education.

I had not brought this to your attention, but in the Green Budget Coalition submission to the Department of Finance there is a recommendation for $100 million to establish a Parks Canada foundation that would be an arm's-length organization. That organization could leverage funds from the private sector and from other groups and could administer funds to address issues concerning boundaries around national parks, issues arising just outside of national parks, research programs, collaborative partnerships and solutions to some of the ecological integrity problems that stem from outside the parks. That is one model we are proposing, but certainly not the only one.

The Chairman: Thank you for attending. We appreciate it very much.

The committee continued in camera.