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

Issue 23 - Evidence, October 5, 2000

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-27, An Act respecting the National Parks of Canada, met this day at 9:12 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Mira Spivak (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: We are continuing our discussions on Bill C-27, which is proposed legislation respecting Canada's national parks. I am very pleased to have with us today a delegation from the Assembly of First Nations.

Mr. Ballantyne, please proceed with your presentation.

Mr. Ron Ballantyne, Chief, Grand Rapids First Nation, Assembly of First Nations: Madam Chair, honourable senators, we are pleased that you have agreed to hear from us regarding our concerns about this important legislation. We will be pleased to answer any questions you have at the end of our presentation.

We apologize for not having our submission translated in advance of this presentation.

I want to remind the committee that the Assembly of First Nations represents the 633 First Nations communities across Canada. We represent one of three constitutionally recognized groups in Canada, and are referred to in that document as "Indians." We have more than 2,000 reserve territories, in every corner of Canada. However, our traditional territories span every province and territory. We have treaties in many parts of Canada. These treaties were the instruments that granted access to Canada to our traditional territories. In some areas, such as the west and north, treaties are still being negotiated. The importance of this is to acknowledge that in many parts of Canada issues and rights related to lands and resources are still unsettled and must be considered when one is thinking of creating parks.

The Assembly of First Nations supports this proposed legislation, in principle; however, the assembly has some serious objections to the bill, and I will outline those objections later in our presentation.

I would at this time like to focus on some of the positive achievements in the current draft of Bill C-27.

Most important, we support the proposed legislation's efforts to address the ecological integrity of the existing and future national parks and national historic sites in Canada. Since time immemorial, First Nations have been effective in preserving the ecological integrity of their territories. First Nations have their own customs, traditions and practices for protecting the land. There are many reports that acknowledge the importance of the role of First Nations in protecting the natural habitat in Canada.

Most recently, the Report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks was released. Volume II of that report is entitled "Setting a New Direction for Canada's National Parks." The panel concluded that:

The naturalized knowledge, and traditional uses, culture and values of aboriginal peoples were once as much a part of ecosystems as water, vegetation, landscape or wildlife. Until recently, national parks' creation and ongoing activities have largely ignored the aboriginal human aspect of park ecology. As a result, naturalized knowledge and values are now generally lacking in national parks. This ignorance of naturalized knowledge has contributed to the decline of ecological integrity in many parks.

When the Europeans first came to North America, they encountered an overwhelmingly rich ecosystem, thriving with natural biodiversity. As time passed, European agricultural and industrial practices were cause for concern by First Nations who watched the rich biodiversity that would be consumed at the expense of economic considerations. The result has been consistent erosion of the natural habitat.

The threat of devastation to the natural habitat was one reason First Nations negotiated treaties with the Crown. First Nations signed these treaties with the Crown to ensure that their lands would be protected and under their control for future generations. As First Nations, we continue to strive to maintain Canada's natural biodiversity. This is reflected by the fact that some of the richest remaining areas of natural biodiversity are overseen by First Nations. For instance, one of the few remaining examples of a Carolinian forest in Canada can be found at the Six Nations Reserve in Ontario. It is worth noting that approximately 50 per cent of the parks in Canada were either initiated at the request of First Nations or had some degree of First Nation involvement.

One reason for this is that many First Nations have been, and continue to be, dependent upon these park lands for traditional forms of harvesting, forms of harvesting that are consistent with the aim of ecological integrity, because it is never until the intervention of outsiders that the ecosystem becomes threatened. First Nations have always harvested, and continue to harvest within these areas. As a result, First Nations are endowed with intimate working knowledge of the habitats themselves, knowledge that can only be acquired and accrued through lifetimes of collective experience. It is for this reason that First Nations are in the best position to speak both to the need to conserve these areas and to the necessary methods to conserve habitats. This land is our home; this land is our life; this is our identity.

The continued ability to harvest in our own, sustainable manner is of paramount importance to First Nations. Is this inconsistent with Bill C-27's objective of maintaining the ecological integrity of protected areas? No, quite the opposite. First Nations' implementation of this objective predates Confederation.

For this reason, we argue that First Nations are in the best position to manage these resources, should the goals and objectives of Bill C-27 be met. Parks Canada has expressed willingness and desire for this to occur, and there are clauses within Bill C-27 that enable a degree of joint management. The drafters and participants of Bill C-27 should be applauded for this effort to include First Nations' interests. Moreover, Bill C-27 in its current state has addressed First Nations' interests in other respects as well, which I know First Nations appreciate. However, there are problems with Bill C-27 that make it objectionable to First Nations.

Our objections to Bill C-27 were outlined in our previous submissions before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on May 17, 2000. We recognize that efforts were made to address some of our objections through recent amendments to the provisions of Bill C-27. Unfortunately, the revisions, in our view, did not go far enough to address our concerns.

Our main objections to the legislative process of Bill C-27 and to the actual bill can be summarized as follows: First, we recommended that prior to adopting new legislation or policy the House of Commons Standing Committee take the extra time to consult First Nations with interests in national parks and national historic. Bill C-27 has far-reaching effects on the aboriginal and treaty rights that require the Crown to consult First Nations and, in some cases, obtain the consent of First Nations.

Some of the constitutional rights of First Nations affected by Bill C-27 are as follows: Traditional harvesting rights to be exercised by First Nations members in the parks; conservation issues and overall management of parks; economic rights to be exercised in the parks; spiritual rights to be exercised and protected in the parks; cooperative management, training and employment opportunities; archeological resources, including material culture and burial grounds; and aboriginal title.

We made this recommendation at that time because we do not have the time or resources to consult First Nation communities, nor were resources provided to them to enable them to intervene. The federal government does have such resources and can make the time.

In addition to consultation, it was recommended that the legislation be drafted in such a manner that provided the Minister of Canadian Heritage with a sufficient mandate and authority to develop and implement, in partnership with First Nations, a wide range of options to ensure respect and protection of aboriginal and treaty rights within the national parks and national historic sites.

At our presentation, we also had our legal advisors identity some of the clauses in Bill C-27 that did not reflect the current state of the law on aboriginal and treaty rights. This aspect of our submission was intended to highlight the necessity of consulting First Nations who have aboriginal and treaty right interests in existing and future parks and historic sites.

We wish to inform you that our recommendation was not addressed by the House of Commons standing committee. No meaningful consultation on Bill C-27 took place with First Nations.

We believe that the decision not to provide meaningful consultation with First Nations on national legislation that so clearly affects our aboriginal and treaty rights is unacceptable. Moreover, it is not in keeping with the federal government's present commitments to First Nations under "Gathering Strength."

The federal government talks about renewing and strengthening its relationship with aboriginal peoples based on principles of mutual respect, recognition, responsibility and sharing. By failing to conduct proper consultations on Bill C-27, we believe that they have failed to meet this commitment.

We believe that if Canada consults with First Nations it would only strengthen Bill C-27. The lack of consultations with First Nations is, at minimum, a missed opportunity for Heritage Canada. This was an opportunity to develop a true partnership with First Nations in developing legislation that so necessarily requires the input of First Nations.

We also believe that the developments in the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions now require consultation, and in some cases consent, of First Nations when developing legislation that affects the aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations. You will hear from Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation and how their experiences with Parks Canada, and the federal government as a whole, serve as a good example of how important it is to consult First Nations at the onset of the legislative process.

Our second recommendation was also not addressed adequately. Although there are other examples, we will focus on two main concerns with Bill C-27. Bill C-27 in its current state does not adequately address our aboriginal title interests; nor does it address our site-specific aboriginal and treaty rights.

First, we recommended that aboriginal title and Crown title needed to be reconciled. We indicated that this it was a requirement expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw. Moreover, we indicate that Bill C-27 was inconsistent with Delgamuukw in many regards. We specifically referred to subclauses 6(2) and 4(2) of Bill C-27 as evidence that aboriginal title had not been properly addressed.

We indicated that the effect of subclause 4(2) of Bill C-27 was to expressly provide for the status quo in the proposed legislation. It would not address aboriginal title claims sufficiently. Moreover, subclause 6(2) contemplates that the resolution of an aboriginal title claim will enable the Governor in Council to remove park reserves, with any remainder to become a full park. However, Bill C-27 still provides that in order for a park to have full park status Her Majesty, the Queen in Right of Canada, must have absolute title. The AFN indicated that extinguishment was not an acceptable option. The Crown needed to reconcile aboriginal title with its own title. The status quo was not an option.

The response to our concerns with respect to aboriginal title was a mere revision to Bill C-27 to exclude reference to the federal government's comprehensive land claim policy. This response is unacceptable to First Nations because it references and supports a policy that is itself imposed on First Nations that still seeks to extinguish First Nations rights and entitlements to their lands in return for other benefits.

It is important to mention that in April of last year, in New York, the United Nations Human Rights Committee determined that the extinguishment of aboriginal rights is incompatible with the fundamental human right, namely, the right of self-determination, of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Extinguishment, a doctrine and practice of involuntary severance of aboriginal peoples' rights in, and relationships with, their traditional lands, is no longer legitimate or lawful. If it ever was, the ideal of the creation and protection of safe havens and a sustainable habitat for the flora and fauna of the natural world is a noble one. However, it cannot and must not be built on a foundation of the violation of anybody's or any peoples' fundamental human rights.

I want to provide an example of when human rights are sacrificed in favour of parks. On the shores of Lake Huron, in southwest Ontario, is a very beautiful beach. Buried at a park at a place our people call "Aazh-oo-dena" -- infamously known to Canadians and internationally as Ipperwash Park -- are the remains of Anthony "Dudley" George. Dudley George died, as you know, in a hail of police bullets on September 6, 1995.

Earlier this century, governments had acted to protect a corner of this land for public enjoyment of its wild beauty. However, in so doing, they stole the land from its rightful owners, for it was part of the First Nation's territory and the subject matter of a treaty of 1825.

In so doing, when they created a park on this land, the Crown bulldozed a sacred native burial ground. Finally, in so doing, and in insisting on holding on to this land unlawfully when its rightful owner came to reclaim the shards of ancestors' graves, the government pushed non-violent demonstrators down, shooting three, and killing Dudley George.

It was the ultimate example of extinguishment: A life was extinguished in the "cause" of the government holding on to illegitimately taken land. The vision and purpose of parks cannot be built on such foundations.

The Ipperwash case is an extreme example. However, all extinguishments are a violation of fundamental human rights, and extinguishments to create a park are no exception.

Amendments to Bill C-27 are needed to address aboriginal title interests of existing parks and future parks. The Delgamuukw case should provide the framework for the legislation. There was no effort to reconcile aboriginal title with Crown title by the legislative drafters. Delgamuukw provides that the only limitation on aboriginal title was that the land could not be used for a purpose inconsistent with the aboriginal connection to the land. Extinguishment is clearly not a blanket requirement. Bill C-27, in its current state, forces First Nations to address their aboriginal title interests under the current federal policies or through the courts.

Second, we recommended changes to Bill C-27 to respect site-specific aboriginal and treaty rights. We provided several examples to the House of Commons standing committee that Bill C-27 does not respect the law on site-specific aboriginal and treaty rights. However, no substantive changes to allay our concerns were made.

We believe that Bill C-27 in its current state still does not address aboriginal and treaty rights sufficiently. Both Sparrow and Delgamuukw provide that if the Crown infringed aboriginal or treaty rights it was required to justify the infringement. The justification process may range from consent to consultation, depending on the right at stake.

We provided several examples of how Bill C-27 did not meet the justification standards required by the Supreme Court of Canada. For example, if aboriginal title exists First Nations are not limited to aboriginal rights for mere traditional purposes. Moreover, treaty rights may not be limited to traditional purposes.

We are not convinced that Bill C-27 in its current state goes far enough to ensure that aboriginal and treaty rights are protected. What we are certain of is that our people will end up as defendants in Canada's courts, continuing to fight for their existing Constitutional rights, despite the fact that the highest court in the land has suggested that these issues should be negotiated between the First Nations and Canada.

The offences and punishment provisions have been significantly increased in Bill C-27. Many of our people are already impoverished. We will not be able to afford aboriginal and treaty rights defences. No legislation in the 21st century should promote further conflicts and poverty on First Nations people. Our rights are enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982. They need to be respected.

The problems in the legislation identified by AFN in this submission and in our submission to the House of Commons standing committee are only some of the problems with Bill C-27. First Nations directly affected are best able to identify other problems and suggest solutions to ensure Bill C-27 will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

In closing, we believe that it is in the best interests of the Crown to develop legislation such as this in partnership with First Nations. It is the Crown's obligation to First Nations and other Canadians. Unamended, the legislation may have the unintended effect of creating a whole new series of First Nations claims based on unjustified infringement of aboriginal and treaty rights. Canada already has a backlog of 400 to 500 specific claims on its books. This legislation, as it stands, may well increase the number of claims substantially and increase Canada's contingent liability as a result. We do not believe this was the intention of the government or the drafters.

As mentioned at the onset of our presentation, First Nations have much to offer Canadians in the establishment and preservation of national parks and national historic sites. We are recommending that First Nations be given the chance to review this bill in the future.

On a personal note, my First Nation has recently been approved by Parks Canada officials regarding the establishment of a park in our treaty territory. At the meeting, promises were made that a park would assist in protecting our treaty area. I must admit that my community members did not receive the presentation too positively. Having learned for myself the impact of Bill C-27, as chief of a First Nation who has recently had dealings with Heritage Canada, I think my community had good reason for concern.

Our teachings tell us that the fruits of an otherwise good deed that is done in a bad way can never be really enjoyed. If the Crown of Canada, or any province or territory, insists that the parks of Canada can be built on foundations of extinguishment of aboriginal rights, violations of human rights, and of the poverty and exclusion of our peoples, then the good deed of protection of flora, fauna and lands is negated by the violation of our aboriginal, treaty and other human rights.

Please heed this call.

We appreciate the opportunity to raise our concerns about this bill with the committee.

The Chairman: I understand, Chief Blackbird, that you wish to make a presentation as well. If you could summarize your presentation, we could get to questions, because we do have other witnesses here.

Chief Blackbird, the floor is yours.

Mr. Dwayne Blackbird, Chief, Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation: We thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak here today. We apologize that we did not have either the resources or the time to have our presentation translated into the French language. I thank the interpreters and translators who will assist us in communicating.

Keeseekoowenin Ojibway Nation is also known as the Riding Mountain Band. My great-great grandfather was Muckatapenace, brother of Mekis, who signed Treaty No. 2 between our people and Queen Victoria on August 21, 1871, on behalf of the Riding Mountain Band.

With me here today is James Plewak, who is the great-great grandson of Chief Keeseekoowenin, whose name our First Nation now bears. Chief Keeseekoowenin was also a half-brother to Mekis. James Plewak is a member of our band and works as a technician for our First Nation.

On April 22, 1998, Keeseekoowenin appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to speak about Bill C-29, to establish the Parks Canada Agency. At that time, we spoke about the band's disposition of reserve lands at Clear Lake when the Riding Mountain National Park was created and the strained relationship that our people have had with Parks since that time. We presented our point of view, that we are not merely one of many stakeholders in the national park but that we have title to the land in Canadian law, with rights on that land, recognized in treaty, and that our relationship with the national park goes far, far beyond that of mere "stakeholder." We spoke about a need to create a forum for First Nations to discuss issues with Parks in a non-confrontational, peaceful manner. Though our appearance before the committee did not result in any legislative changes to the bill, it did open the door to the establishment of the senior officials forum, where senior officials from Parks Canada and Keeseekoowenin would meet regularly to discuss issues and proposal. By the time Bill C-27 received Royal Assent in December 1998, the senior officials forum was already established.

In April of this year, on behalf of the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation, James Plewak appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to speak about Bill C-27. He spoke again of the history of our people and the disposition of our reserve at Clear Lake, and our struggle to regain it. He spoke of the senior officials forum that we had established with Parks Canada and the more positive relationship that is developing. He also cautioned the committee that our positive relationship is tenuous and could possibly break down at any time, since its success requires a moral commitment from both parties to make it work. Strict enforcement of the Parks' legislative mandate or inflexibility of officials could dissolve it instantly.

We ask that you refer to the text of those presentations.

Again, however, the legislative change we require to protect our interests was not adopted.

We are pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this bill again. We are here today to bring to your attention a number of issues, which we shall discuss: Keeseekoowenin's experiences with respect to having a reserve in a national park; the senior officials forum, its purpose, and a progress report with respect to it; the need for the establishment of a sustainable coalition of First Nations with interests in national parks; the disparity with respect to consultation, protection and exercise of aboriginal rights, and First Nation management roles in new national parks vis-à-vis older established parks; and the great potential of national parks and First Nations working more closely together on realizing the full potential of the parks.

Before we speak on these topics, I would like to provide the committee with some historical background information about our people and our relationship to the land now known as Riding Mountain National Park.

Riding Mountain National Park (RMNP) is a national park located on the traditional lands of the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation, which was known as the Riding Mountain Band of Treaty No. 2. One of the First Nation's reserves, Clear Lake No. 61A, lies within the national park boundaries on the shores of Clear Lake. The national park was established in the 1930s, at a time when prevailing attitudes did not accommodate consideration of First Nation involvement in the park's development and operation. When the national park was created, the Clear Lake reserve was erroneously included within its boundaries. Later, the reserve was expropriated for national parks purposes, and in 1935 the people living there were forcibly relocated to the First Nation's main reserve at Elphinstone.

In 1991, the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation regained part of the original Clear Lake reserve as a result of a specific claim. A second portion of the original Clear Lake reserve, known as the 1906 Lands, has been accepted for claim and is currently under negotiation.

Prior to signing of Treaty No. 2 in 1871, the people of the Riding Mountain Band lived within the Riding Mountain. Early Europeans referred to Riding Mountain as the Fort Dauphin Mountain. Our people called the mountain "the Hill of the Buffalo Chase."

Our people of the Riding Mountain Band lived a good life in these times. In the winter months, they lived in the Riding Mountain around Lake Audy, west end of Wasagaming and north of the present-day golf course. There was food, fuel and shelter at its best. Fur, moose and wapiti -- elk -- were abundant. Some of the more popular winter campsites were along the west shore of Wasagaming near the Indian Cemetery. Another was just north of where the Wasagaming golf course is now. Lake Audy and Whitewater Lake were also popular sites, and another favourite winter camp was at Kennis Creek along the old Gilbert Plains or Dauphin Trail. Fishing was good. There were game birds.

Lake Audy was noted for its abundance of waterfowl in the fall, when ducks and geese stopped there on the migration south. Lake Audy was called "Summer Bird Landing Lake" in our language. In the spring, some of the families travelled over the east of the mountain somewhere between McCreary and Ochre River, near the village of Ochre River, to make maple sugar and syrup, which was stored in containers made of birch bark and sealed with spruce pitch.

In the summer, our people moved to the plains on the southwest side of the mountain for the buffalo chase and drying of meat, which was later pounded, then mixed with tallow and wild fruit into pemmican, which was stored in bags of hide or cartons of birch bark. The buffalo migrated into the Riding Mountains for the winter and back out to the plains for the summer.

In 1986, when several colonies of British North America Canada united to become a larger colony, the area of Riding Mountain was Ojibway Nation territory. Canada had bought the rights of the Hudson Bay's Company, but Queen Victoria insisted that before settlement could be permitted treaties must be signed with the First Nations.

The treaty referred to as Treaty No. 2 was signed on August 21, 1871, between Her Majesty's commissioner, Welmyss M. Simpson, and the "Chippewa Tribe of Indians" inhabiting an area to the north and west of the just-concluded Treaty No. 1 area. The purpose of the treaty was to "open up to settlement and immigration" the land covered by the Treaty and to ensure that there would be "peace and goodwill between them and Her Majesty."

Chief Keeseekoowenin was aware that the treaty allowed for two lifestyles, the continuing of a traditional lifestyle and the taking up of a modern or agricultural lifestyle. Chief Keeseekoowenin, after the death of his half-brother Mekis, chose a reserve in the valley of the Little Saskatchewan River because of its suitability for agriculture and because his father Okanase was buried there. Those people that chose to maintain the traditional lifestyle remained to live in Riding Mountain and on the shores of Clear Lake.

The Riding Mountain Band understood the environment in its territories and knew that while agriculture, horse breeding and cattle raising was possible a short distance from the south end of the mountain, the mountain itself would never sustain an agricultural economy <#0107> in other words, it would never be taken up for "settlement and immigration," which meant that it would always be available to the First Nation for its traditional pursuits.

This fact was implicitly recognized by the federal government in 1896 when it declared most of the Riding Mountain as a "timber reserve," not a place where trees and wildlife were preserved for posterity but rather an unsettled area where settlers could gather fuel wood and timber to build their homesteads.

The First Nation considers that the establishment of a national park and the restriction of their rights to resources and the use of lands not for "settlement and immigration" was a surprising exercise of federal power that was never contemplated at the time of treaty and is therefore contrary to the letter, spirit, and intent of the treaty.

I have included as an appendix two documents for reference. One is a historical outline of our First Nations land claims on Clear Lake Indian Reserve 61A; the other is a copy of the protocol agreement establishing the senior officials forum between Keeseekoowenin Ojibway Nation and Parks Canada. I request that these documents be entered into the record as evidence.

I will now ask James Plewak to speak. He will elaborate on some of the points that I have raised. When he is finished, I will provide some concluding remarks.

Mr. James Plewak, Technician, Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation: As Chief Blackbird noted earlier, I am a great-great grandson of Chief Keeseekoowenin, for whom our First Nation is named. I am also a member of the Riding Mountain Band and I work for the band in the capacity of a technician.

Before I begin, let me say that I am privileged to speak on this bill before the Senate committee at this time. I am here to elaborate on some of the issues that Chief Blackbird introduced in his opening remarks.

First, I would like to elaborate on the First Nation's experience with respect to having an Indian reserve in a national park. When Clear Lake 61A lands were returned to the First Nation in 1994, Canada recognized that those lands were always an Indian reserve, with the creation of Riding Mountain National Park notwithstanding. It is also part of the national park and has been since 1930. With recognition by Canada that the Clear Lake Indian reserve lands are and have always been Indian reserve, the dilemma remains that they were also national park lands as well.

Before the introduction of Bill C-27, Clear Lake Indian Reserve 61A was still listed in the national park schedule. Since the Clear Lake 61A lands were returned in 1994, the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation arrived at the opinion that the lands need not be removed from the national park, at least until a study had been conducted on the pros and cons of it remaining in or out of the national park. Land being both in an Indian reserve and a national park could have benefits and positive consequences to both parties. We want to explore this issue more in depth, understanding the ramifications, before a decision to remove or retain the lands as national park is made.

When Bill C-27 was introduced, it redefined the Riding Mountain National Park boundaries in a manner such that the Clear Lake Indian Reserve is automatically exempted from the schedule. Such removal constitutes being kicked out of the park a second time.

We were not asked whether we want our reserve removed. The First Nation saw that having an Indian reserve within a national park could be beneficial not only to ourselves but to both parties. We want to explore this issue more in depth, understanding the ramifications before a final decision is made.

One of the issues is that it has two legal statuses. While we argue that it, in fact, had dual status for a good part of the 20th century, a new framework should at least be explored, in our opinion. In April, in our presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we asked that the status quo be maintained until the question could receive further consideration.

The House of Commons standing committee report included an amendment to the bill that simply allowed for an order in council to remove the 1906 lands from Riding Mountain National Park on settlement of that claim, rather than amendment to the act, as normally is the case. Should Bill C-27 remain unchanged in this respect, the 1906 lands will still be in an Indian reserve in a national park until they are removed by order in council and the 1896 lands should be an Indian reserve surrounded by a national park.

In our view, the legal anomaly of the land being both national park and an Indian reserve need not be a barrier but rather an opportunity that both sides should take advantage of. In any case, we believe that our people should have the opportunity to make a full and informed decision on whether Clear Lake Indian Reserve 61A land is removed from the national park or not.

Next, I would like to provide the committee with details on our unique relationship that the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway Nation has established with Parks Canada, a relationship that could become a model for broader First Nations-Parks relationships.

Following our appearance before the House of Commons standing committee in April 1998, the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation had negotiated a "Protocol Agreement on Establishing a Seniors Officials Forum between Keeseekoowenin First Nation and National Parks." That agreement was signed on November 8, 1998.

This protocol is between the Secretary of State (Parks) on behalf of Parks Canada and the Government of Canada and the chief on behalf of the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway Nation (The Riding Mountain Band). The objective of the protocol agreement was to establish a forum to achieve a mutually beneficial and positive working relationship. The working relationship and the operation of the forum is expected, as it develops, to be known and acknowledged in Canada and internationally for its high quality and value to both parties.

Prior to the establishment of the senior officials forum, the only forum that existed to deal with issues was the Riding Mountain National Park round table, a forum for stakeholders or special interest groups to deliberate on the park's management plan. The so-called "round table" has proved not to be the place where we can settle disputes or deal with issues that relate to First Nations interests. In fact, by participating in the round table, we were considered just another special interest group, which, in our opinion and view, was simply a minority. Furthermore, our participation as mere stakeholders, in our view, lowered our status as a First Nation and as historic owners of the land, and sidelined our concerns. In any case, the round table proved not to be a place to deal with issues that pertain to First Nations interests nor a place to address issues of aboriginal rights and title.

The senior officials forum promises to become a model for a constructive working relationship between Parks Canada and Keeseekoowenin First Nation, a relationship based upon mutual respect and commitment to resolving outstanding issues in a positive and productive manner. We believe that there is no other relationship such as this one established anywhere in Canada. However, the senior officials forum, although positive, is tenuous and fragile, and could deteriorate at any time. The success of the forum requires a moral commitment by both parties to make it work. Strict enforcement of Parks Canada's legislative mandate or inflexibility of officials could dissolve it instantly.

I would now like to discuss the idea of a coalition of First Nations with interests in national parks. Whereas the senior officials forum is a forum between a specific First Nation and Parks Canada, there exists nothing similar on a national scope to address those issues that pertain to First Nations that have interests in national parks. We believe that a body needs to be created and sustained, a body that allows for the development of positive and productive working relationships between Parks Canada and First Nations that have the historic resource use interests, cultural interests, and ceremonial interests in lands designated as national parks.

Furthermore, with the creation of the National Parks Agency, we believe that First Nations require a sustainable body to act as a counterpoint and a sounding board for First Nations-Parks issues nationally. Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation first proposed the concept of a coalition of First Nations with interests in national parks in 1998 to do just that. In our view, such an organization is needed to address common First Nations-Parks issues nationally. It offers the promise of dealing with issues of interest to First Nations, such as aboriginal title in national parks, for instance, in a mutually beneficial, non-confrontational manner.

The Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation believes that a coalition of First Nations with interests in national parks is a viable alternative to confrontation and legislation involving lands and resource use in a national park. It offers to provide both the Crown and the First Nations with an opportunity to develop a new working relationship for their mutual benefit. Such negotiated solutions could remove the necessity for First Nations to resort to litigation to resolve issues of aboriginal title and inherent and treaty rights to park lands. The purpose of a national park and the objectives of the First Nations could operate in tandem, each reinforcing the other.

The Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation does not have the resources to create and sustain such a coalition by ourselves. We have taken this matter to the Assembly of First Nations and are pleased to report that a resolution supporting the concept was passed by the AFN's annual general assembly in June 1998.

We invite this committee to express its approval of our discussions of national parks about the work we are doing in forming a coalition of First Nations with interests in national parks.

We believe that Parks needs this independent counterpoint with which to engage in discussion of mutual interests, and we need some modest park resources to facilitate the coalition start-up. We invite this committee to conduct a review of the relationship of First Nations and Parks Canada. We expect the review would be favourable as to what has been accomplished, and would allow this committee to recommend steps that remain to be taken.

I wish next to speak about the disparity of aboriginal interests vis-à-vis new national parks and older, established parks. In our view, Bill C-27 does nothing to address this disparity that exists with respect to First Nations consultation, protection and exercise of aboriginal rights, and management roles in new national parks vis-à-vis older established parks.

When Riding Mountain National Park was created in 1930, our people were never consulted, though our people were affected the most. Had the current legal scenario developed from recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions been explicitly in place in 1930, it would have been clear that the creation of Riding Mountain National Park would have created extensive consultation with the Riding Mountain Band before the park could be established. This could have meant agreements regarding the harvesting and cooperative management of resources, including wildlife, timber and medicines. It could have included agreements regarding employment of First Nations members in the parks, preference in economic activities, involvement in decision making.

In fact, this is precisely what is happening in the territories with the establishment of new national parks. While there is a good spirit connected with such relationship building and while a new atmosphere and new attitudes are growing within Parks Canada, it also must be said that Parks Canada has little choice except to comply with the imperatives to respect aboriginal title and inherent and treaty rights. Until now, however, the same recognition has not been given to the aboriginal title and inherent and treaty rights regarding existing older established national parks. If this situation should prevail, it will mean new claims, new legislation, a struggle to the bitter end.

Fortunately, there are signs within the federal government that its position is softening. For instance, the Riding Mountain band has the senior officials forum through which matters are discussed regularly and issues are resolved. Gradually, trust and confidence are being rebuilt. Already there have been some remarkable results, which could not have been achieved even four years ago.

However, as I pointed out earlier, a senior officials forum is nothing more than a gentleman's agreement. It carries no legislative weight. Such a solution is tenuous. We believe that a more solid basis should be implemented. We ask that your report recommend that, based on consultation with interested First Nations, a regime be established where older, established national parks are mandated to accommodate First Nations interest in the same manner that new national parks are required.

Mr. Blackbird: I have a few closing remarks.

We believe that the objectives of Parks Canada can be achieved in a manner consistent with the rights, title and well-being of First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples, and we seek the support of all Canadians who would like to see a progressive Parks Canada working cooperatively with us in developing this mutually productive relationship.

I do not say this lightly, since my people have probably suffered more than others at the hands of National Parks. We have experienced a loss of land, the illegal expropriation of a reserve, the burning of houses, the denial of access to our traditional territory, the loss of access to our traditional economic resources, the denial of access to our culture and ceremonial places, the humiliation of having our ancestors' and relatives' resting place being a tourist attraction. There have been numerous arrests, court battles, confrontations and violence at the hands of National Parks, yet we still offer our hand out in friendship.

We believe that First Nations and Parks Canada can both benefit by working more closely together on realizing the full potential of parks. Our people are not going away. National parks are not going away. We have to work together.

We extend our invitation to this committee to visit us whenever you are in Manitoba. You will always be welcome. This is our tradition and practice.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentations. I have found them most interesting, particularly since I know the area, as you know.

Senator Taylor: You mention consultation several times. Two issues come up, it seems to me. The AFN, and also you talk about a coalition of First Nations that are involved with Parks. Since AFN is comprised of nearly 633 nations, I think it would be unwieldy. Are we talking about a coalition of First Nations that would be independent of the AFN, or would they just be a subcommittee of the AFN? In other words, if we are going to coordinate, it would be easier to coordinate with coalition rather than the AFN, which has 633 members it would have to keep happy.

Mr. Plewak: The way we envision such a coalition is that the AFN would assist in organizing the First Nations across the country that do have an interest in national parks to provide resources, coordination, so that the First Nations that have those interests could meet to develop ideas and viewpoints that can be brought forward to the new agency and to the aboriginal secretariat.

We recognize that not every First Nation across the country has interests with specific national parks; some do, but it is really a broad national issue. Keeseekoowenin First Nation alone cannot organize on a national basis, utilizing our own resources, an organization of such scope, but we believe that there is need for it.

Senator Taylor: It sounds like you are setting up a rather difficult coordination process here.

Maybe we can go on from that. In my reading of the bill, I do not have the concerns that you do. In my opinion, you are going to be in a worse position if this proposed legislation does not pass. Clauses 4 and 6 particularly recognize First Nations' rights with respect to treaties and harvesting, in other words, than if we had nothing. I am not suggesting that the bill is perfect, but would you not agree that it is better than what you now have?

Ms Dianne Corbiere, Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations: I suppose our response to that, and I think the point was made clear, is that this is the first time there have been major revisions to the act, and it is a federal act. Several Supreme Court of Canada decisions have been made. This was an opportunity for the federal government to introduce proposed legislation that is the law of the land, in line with the decisions of the highest court, and, in our opinion, they have failed to do so. Therefore, does it go farther than before? I think we are saying no.

In our opinion, there are offences and sanctions that have been significantly increased, and we are going to see many of our members in court trying to advocate for their aboriginal treaty rights. This proposed legislation has the potential to cause more political strife. There is a risk of more Burnt Church situations.

The federal government has an obligation to ensure that legislation is consistent with Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and, as I said, they have failed to do that.

The Chairman: There is, of course, a non-derogation clause here. I presume that the non-derogation clause would also mean interpretation by the courts, that that the concept of section 35 would also include that. I would like your comment on that.

Ms Corbiere: That is a point that has been raised by Parks officials. We suggested that as a minimum request at the House of Commons standing committee. In terms of the non-derogation clause, if the legislation is inconsistent with what a First Nation believes its aboriginal treaty rights to be, then that First Nation is still in the same position. In other words, if the non-derogation clause was serious, then the rest of the bill should have been consistent with that. We raised several examples of how the current bill is inconsistent with Supreme Court of Canada decisions. The non-derogation clause, in our opinion, only allows us to go back to court to deal with some of the inconsistencies of the bill with Supreme Court of Canada cases.

There is also a constitutional provision that says the same thing, but the fact remains that we are still in court asserting our aboriginal and treaty rights. The government had an opportunity to make the legislation consistent, to make it very broad and enabling, to address those aboriginal and treaty rights that are protected by the Constitution. As we indicated in our presentation, we think that opportunity has been missed. In summary, it does not do what is necessary.

Senator Taylor: I am not a lawyer but I do not really agree with the interpretation. It looks as if this is an attempt to do treaty negotiation in the Parks legislation. Nevertheless, I will go one a step further, just jump from that to something else.

You mentioned harvesting -- and this is a concern. Certainly, in traditional times, harvesting could be handled, and the land would take harvesting, meat or fruit or berries, and the traditional ways of collecting them. As you know, some people argue that the buffalo disappeared because the Métis acquired the 30-30 and were able to shoot many buffalo. Would you be sticking to traditional harvesting? With modern forms of harvesting, you could quickly clean out the ecological integrity of an area.

Mr. Blackbird: I cannot agree with you on the disappearance of the buffalo being blamed on the Métis. I think settlement is more to blame for the disappearance of the buffalo.

Senator Taylor: Would you agree that rifles were more to blame than bows and arrows?

Mr. Blackbird: No. I maintain that settlement was the lone reason for the disappearance of the buffalo, not the Métis.

Senator Taylor: Where is Senator Chalifoux when we need her?

Mr. Ballantyne: I would like to respond to that last question. Let us be clear on this, that the aboriginal and treaty rights are constitutionally protected by section 35. The right to harvest is one of those rights. The courts have said that if you are going to infringe on those you must have a valid reason.

Senator Taylor: That is harvesting in the traditional way, not harvesting in the modern way. Do you not distinguish between the two?

Mr. Richard Powless, Acting Chief Executive Officer, Assembly of First Nations: The courts have said that the right to do it commercially is also an aboriginal treaty right.

The Chairman: That is subject to conservation.

Mr. Powless: Subject to conservation, but you have to prove that what you are doing in consultation with Aboriginal peoples, First Nations meets that end; you cannot arbitrarily do that.

Senator Taylor: I know what you mean.

Senator Banks: Both my questions are supplementary to those of Senator Taylor. It sounds to me that in your argument you are asking that this bill settle land claims. That is not the purpose of this bill. This bill takes into account in the derogation clause that no aboriginal rights will be infringed by it. It also says in clause 17 that with respect to limiting harvesting it will be done for conservation purposes only.

The bill also provides that the minister with respect to the establishment of new parks and regulations, et cetera, is obliged under this proposed legislation to consult with aboriginal peoples, which was not previously the case.

I will address my specific question to Mr. Ballantyne, but anyone may answer it. There was a reference in your remarks to harvesting that goes beyond what most of us would have regarded as what was meant by harvesting, which I took to be the traditional harvesting of flora and fauna. However, there is a suggestion that I now hear that the rights of aboriginals in national parks go beyond that and could involve commercial harvesting. At page 11 of Mr. Ballantyne's remarks, it says that the rights to harvest are not limited to aboriginal rights or for mere traditional purposes.

I would like you to let me know, please, and for the record, exactly what are we talking about here and what is the extent of it. By that, I mean what would be removed from national parks.

Mr. Ballantyne: Traditional harvesting could be defined in many ways. There is a commercial part to that. For instance, people go into logging. Then there are the traditional ways of people harvesting for income. In our area, they call it picking roots. They go into an area, pick roots and then sell. It is a means of getting the family by. I will let Dianne continue on this topic. She is more familiar with it.

Ms Corbiere: Again, what we are saying is there was an opportunity and a challenge here. It is not just First Nations who have parks surrounding their territories or in their territories. There are other First Nations, and, as indicated, there are many First Nations who are interested in parks. We have already indicated that about 50 per cent of the parks in this country involved aboriginal people.

We may have more interests but this legislation had an opportunity to create parks consistent with aboriginal treaty rights, and that may mean commercial activities, as long as conservation is observed, as the chair has mentioned.

The real point is this: We cannot tell you today what that parameter is because our first point was that if there is a process of consultation with First Nations, who have been thinking long and hard about these issues and who have been excluded from this process, there would be many suggestions as to how far commercial harvesting activities might entail.

Our position is that there may be commercial activities within parks because that is what the Supreme Court of Canada says. If we have an aboriginal title interest and are able to prove that, the First Nation may still decide, if the legislation allowed it, to work with Canada and still come up with the park. That is my response, if that is sufficient.

Senator Banks: Do you not take comfort from the fact that the proposed act obliges the minister to consult with you in those regards?

Ms Corbiere: I think it was our position at the House of Commons standing committee that the proposed legislation prevents commercial activities and that the language is specific, and we identified it. I hope you have a chance to refer to our submissions where we identified that the bill prevents commercial activities. It is clear.

Senator Adams: It is too bad we do not have more time. We have many questions for you. In my view, the First Nations have more right to speak about the parks. Last year and the year before that, I was fighting the creation of a park in some of the communities up in the territory. Tuktut Nogait, a new park, was created a couple of years ago in what is now Nunavut.

I had particular difficulty with Bill C-38. I tried my best at that time, but I could not do anything, even as a member of the Senate. Even the Aboriginal Committee did not support my amendment.

I am not happy with Bill C-27. I believe it is going to affect the future of our culture and some of the people in the reserve. There is another proposed national park, too, in Nunavut. It is a nice area for hunting and everything. There are many polar bears, lots of fish, and whales. Fishing and hunting rights will be extinguished if the bill passes. People will not be able to go there.

I am concerned about the impact on aboriginal peoples of some clauses in Bill C-27. We keep hearing that people should not use the parks any more, that the parks should just be for animals. We lived with the animals. We hunt them and eat them.

I have a book that was sent to me about extinct species. Where I live in South Baffin Island, at one time all the caribou were gone. It had nothing to do with them being killed off. Nature did it. In the fall, everything would freeze; the caribou was gone. Over 30 years ago, the government put in 40 caribou in South Baffin Island. Now we have too many caribou. We have to kill more than 2,000 animals every year. We have to control the herd.

Since the beginning, the Government of Canada has created parks with land that was once Indian reserve. I think it should be still Indian reserve because we were there first. It should be controlled for the community.

What do you think about the bill? Should we pass it or should we hold on to it until an election and hope it dies on the Order Paper? Should we hold it, kill it or pass it?

Mr. Powless: The decision of what happens with the bill is yours. This is the second time we have brought our concerns to the parliamentary committees. We are here again because we are concerned that our first interventions were not dealt with. Whether the government calls an election, that is the call of the Prime Minister, and whatever happens, happens.

We just want to say this: If this is important, and we think it is, and if it is a priority, then the government will pass it. If it is not in this term, then if the government is re-elected, whatever government is elected, we will work with that government to make sure the bill represents our interests.

Senator Cochrane: Mr. Ballantyne, on page 9 of your brief, you mentioned Ipperwash Park and the problems there. Madam Chair, can we clarify this and note for the record that this is an Ontario provincial park?

The Chairman: The federal government does not have jurisdiction over provincial parks or treaty rights.

Mr. Powless: We simply used Ipperwash as an example of what happens if a park is not properly planned or if a park is used to violate human rights wrong. The government said that the First Nations there had no interest, that Ontario Parks was there to guard the park. The First Nations said they had a traditional burial ground there and the government said that there was no evidence of that. The government went in to enforce, removing people who were using and occupying the park.

You have a similar clause in the proposed legislation.

After Dudley George was killed, the government discovered that the First Nations were right. Documents were found that verified that in fact a traditional burial ground exists.

Our point is that we caution against that. It is an extreme example, but, unfortunately, it is an example of what can go wrong.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. We hear your concerns.

Mr. Ballantyne: How soon can we expect a response with respect to our presentations today?

The Chairman: We will have to determine that after we hear the list of witnesses. The committee will have to talk about it and make a decision.

Our next witnesses are from Sunshine Village, Mr. Ralph D. Scurfield, and from the National Park Ski Area Association, Mr. Crosbie Cotton. Welcome, Mr. Cotton and Mr. Scurfield.

Mr. Crosbie Cotton, Director, National Park Ski Area Association: Thank you for allowing us to appear before this august committee. I am appearing today representing four world-renowned ski areas in Banff and Jasper. They fill 2/1,000ths of the park in which they exist, or less than 1/1,000th of the parks in Canada. They have actually no intention of ever expanding beyond their legally constituted boundaries, and they are deeply concerned that in a few decades they will not exist if this bill is passed.

These historic wilderness areas are fully committed to the concept of ecological integrity but they also believe that human use should not be necessarily sacrificed. Mr. Scurfield will talk about some the details of how we are doing that and how we are sacrificing human enjoyment.

What I would like to talk about is how these four ski areas are committed to being leaders in the world in environmental excellence balanced with human enjoyment. Just last month, the Lake Louise ski area created the heritage environmental education centre and committed an additional $350,000 to interpretive programs for Canadians to understand their majestic parks and their heritage.

We support the overall theme of this bill, but when we combine it with advocacy science and other federal government activity underway, we know that, without doubt, over time this bill will end skiing in our national parks. Should this occur, and several organizations are publicly on record saying they want it to occur, the economic impact will exceed $500 million a year and the overall quality of life for the million Canadians who visit and ski in our parks each year will have been seriously diminished.

I have read the testimony that this committee has had before it. I would like to clarify some things. Fact 1: Banff National Park has never been in danger of being delisted as a world heritage site. It is hogwash and it is a lie. One person, the same person who led the organization of the protests of the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary this summer, led an assault trying to get it delisted. His complaints were reviewed and rejected.

Fact 2: The number of visitors to our national parks, specifically Banff, is in serious decline. That number has dropped 13 per cent since the Banff Bow Valley Study, and it is our understanding that it will be down another 7 per cent this year.

Fact 3: Minimal funding, in fact, no funding, is directed at the impacts of human use. We have no idea of who uses our parks, where they go and how many there are. Yet ecological research is extensive, including a study this summer, and I can give it to you, to determine if roads act as a barrier to birds flying over them.

Fact 4: Organizations representing more than 1 million Canadians have passed resolutions asking the federal government to withdraw proposed ski area guidelines that cancel existing projects and threaten the long-term economic viability of existing ski areas. That resolution is probably in your package.

Fact 5: The provincial ministers responsible for tourism unanimously, in May, asked that the legislative process for Bill C-27 be delayed pending meaningful consultation, with input from provincial and territorial governments and the tourism industry and the general public. They urged the development of a formal framework and, while recognizing like the ski areas the importance of the environmental and ecological science in the decision-making process, urged that this be balanced with social and economic data.

Fact 6: Although the ski areas have legal leases, the ecological integrity panel on the future of our national parks recommends that the leases be designated as non-conforming use. The panel suggests they be allowed to continue and be treated fairly. However, it noted, if non-conforming facilities become economically non-viable, no longer popular, or are determined to have undue impacts on ecological integrity, Parks Canada should take steps to permanently remove them from our parks.

Fact 7: Ski Marmot Basin, a small area in Jasper, for four years and at a cost of more than $250,000 has attempted to put in one lift. It is part of its long-range plan. To date, the lift is not through the process.

Fact 8: National park ski areas seeking to put in a new lift within the boundary that is legally approved and in their long-range plan face the same level of environmental impact study under CEA as a nuclear power plant.

Fact 9: Sunshine Village -- and Mr. Scurfield will talk about this -- has put forth an heroic effort to try to put in a long-range plan and at every step has been thwarted. It has cost $1 million in legal actions, and he still does not have a long-range plan.

Fact 10: Several major environmental groups that influence Parks Canada policy and have been invited to the round tables publicly have stated that they want ski areas out of the parks.

Fact 11: We have the lowest density of skiers in our parks, but quotas have been, or will be, imposed on these ski areas, quotas that are autocratic and not comprehensible. Skiing Louise has the same quota of 6,000 skiers as Marmot Basin, which is one-third the size of the other.

Fact 12: New wilderness regulations are currently going to be passed. Fully 97 per cent of our mountain national parks will be either off limits to humans or will have minimum intrusion by humans.

You have heard about public opinion polls. They are widely misinterpreted. They are black and white: Do you want to kill everything in the parks or do you want to turn them into Las Vegas? That is not what we propose. We say there can be human use in controlled areas with ecological integrity. We should have this balanced approach, not one or the other.

You may have heard this week that Alpine Canada is very close to losing the ability to host the World Cup races at Lake Louise because a of small clump of trees in the middle of the men's downhill. There have been technological advances in speed, and the International Ski Federation has requested that this clump of trees be removed. Alpine Canada has promised, as part of the mitigating measures, to plant 1,000 trees in the parks, using every school kid in the area in a ski ecology program.

I have just heard recently that it may be accepted, but the general view was that we could not remove this small clump of trees. It is fewer than 100 trees and we would replant 1,000. The consequence there is that the Canadian National Ski Team will lose $500,000 a year in profit from that race and its programming will be reduced by 40 per cent, especially for youth across this country.

Within this context what we are deeply concerned about is the new definition of "ecological integrity," a definition that basically does not allow for human use in our parks, except in the most basic of ways, and we are very much concerned about the quality of science, organized advocacy, summer use.

Second, the legislation now states, "The maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity" is the first priority of Parks Canada. We are deeply concerned about the use of the words "or restoration." We believe that it will lead to different interpretations. It will lead to multi-billion-dollar decisions to cancel human access and activity. It will lead to conflict, legal action, expropriation.

I will give you a quick example. I attended earlier this year the Banff transportation planning forum of Parks Canada, where advocacy groups pushed for the removal of the Trans-Canada Highway through Banff. When that was rejected, they asked that it be buried, at a cost of close to $2 billion dollars. This is an official round table in process with Parks Canada. Parks Canada said it would be costly.

Finally, the scientists that are driving the decision in our park asked that traffic lights be placed on the Trans-Canada Highway at regular intervals so that animals would, over time, learn to cross, and I mean that factually. This is a serious public open consultation process.

Similar to the Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment -- AMPPE -- which has appeared before your committee, we desire the elimination of these dangerous changes in wording. We believe that Canadians should have the ability to debate the impacts. The long-term consequences will be severe, although not fully understood.

At this late stage, we urge this committee to endorse the following AMPPE proposal:

The minister shall also consider the benefit, education and enjoyment derived by visitors to the park and shall establish a visitors secretariat to assist in the management of the parks and to ensure in the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, that the parks continue to serve the needs of visitors and the existing visitors services are maintained at appropriate levels."

In addition, the National Park Ski Association would urge this Senate committee to direct the Heritage Minister and Parks Canada to do the following. First, start immediately allocating funds to build knowledge and capacity in the social and economic sciences, not just the biosciences. Second, analyze and consider social and economic impacts during the decision-making process. Third, undertake quantitative and qualitative human-use research to determine how many visitors use our parks, where they go, and what they do. We currently have no information in this area; there are only estimates. Fourth, make human-use impacts an integral and official part of the Parks Canada ongoing decision-making process at all levels. Fifth, actively work with existing ski-recreation operators to develop their legal leaseholds into showcases of human-use and environmental excellence where visitors on a year-round basis can truly learn about the majesty, heritage and values of our national parks.

The operators and staff of the National Park Ski Area Association are strong environmentalists. We share the vision and we have the aspiration that ecological integrity can be maintained without sacrificing human enjoyment in the very small area of our mountain national parks, as I mentioned earlier, 2/1,000ths, not now restricted.

We seek to work in a collaborative manner but remain deeply concerned that, in a few decades, as the agenda of ecological restoration is pursued, we will not be in existence to do so. Canadians will have lost.

This is the majesty of our country, and we encourage you to take the steps that we have urged today.

I will turn to Mr. Scurfield. Mr. Scurfield was named employer of the year in Canada for youth employment, creating almost 1,000 jobs a year for young Canadians to learn and work in our parks.

Mr. Ralph D. Scurfield, President and CEO, Sunshine Village: Madam Chairman, honourable senators, it is a privilege for me to be here and address this committee on Bill C-27. I was here once before, some 12 years ago, when the legislation was amended in 1988. I am a long-term resident of Banff, having been there almost two decades. Like most residents of the park, I am an environmentalist and a committed one.

Over the past two decades, I have experienced a concerted attack on the lease and contractual rights granted to our company by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. That attack has been a constant one by those who seek to severely restrict and even eliminate all human use in the park. That is contrary to the purpose of parks itself. Parks were preserved and protected for present and future generations of Canadians to use and enjoy.

The National Parks Act states the following:

The National Parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment...and the National Parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

There is also a balance between present use and future use, so there is a tendency to err on the side of protection, and that is a good tendency.

In 1988, an amendment was made and the concept of ecological integrity was introduced. Maintenance of ecological integrity was to be the first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use in a management plan.

Since that 1988 amendment, there have been various studies and processes, such as the Banff Bow Valley Study, the four mountains parks planning program, the Banff National Park management plan and its five-year update completed in 1994. There has been the ecological integrity panel and site-specific Canadian Environmental Assessment Act studies too numerous to mention.

Throughout this, there has been a constant tightening and restriction of the rights of citizens to enjoy and use their parks. Parks always do have that dual-mandate use of enjoyment and preservation.

The four contiguous mountain parks, Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay, encompass over 20,000 square miles, straddling the Alberta-B.C. border. It is an area about four times the size of Prince Edward Island and about half the size of Switzerland. That area, through these studies, has been zoned. They have created a zoning system that sets up different levels of protection. There is a special preservation zone for high-risk areas and very special facilities and resources, such as the Burgess shale, which is a wonderful archeological fossil bed.

Zone II wilderness represents 93 per cent of parks, and only the most rudimentary of services, such as the basic trails and primitive shelters, are permitted. That designation is being made law.

Zone III is a buffer zone. It is a natural environment, a transition between wilderness and the zone the ski areas exist in, which is Zone IV, outdoor recreation. That is what we are.

Outdoor recreation is less than 1 per cent of the park. It includes major rights of way, such as the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 93, the ski areas and other facilities such as the Lake Minewanka area. It is normally called "front country" by most people, and it is the area most people visit, this very small area of front country.

Finally, there is a Zone V area, which includes the town of Banff, the hamlet of Lake Louise and the town site of Jasper, which is another intensive use zone.

I will give you a little bit of the history of Sunshine. It has a relatively long history by Western Canadian standards. Sunshine was established in 1928 by the CPR as a cabin for trail riders. Winter recreation attributes of the area were quickly recognized by some local entrepreneurs and guides. Ski operations began in the early 1930s and the ski area evolved from then.

Today, the ski areas are regarded as the "cornerstone of winter tourism," by the April 1997 Banff National Park management plan. The strategic goal, they say, is to implement a strategy for summer and winter use of the ski areas. "The strategy will support the long-term viability of the ski hills while keeping impact on ecological integrity to a minimum."

Hence, we are a cornerstone of winter tourism, and our long-term viability is to be supported. The status of being a cornerstone of winter tourism was confirmed by a recent study prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The study found that the economic activity generated by the Alberta Rocky Mountain ski resorts amounted to $771 million. That includes all the spinoff benefits -- hotels, food, and other activities. Taxes flowing to the federal government alone were estimated to be over $81 million.

In your packages, I have included pictures of some facilities. They are there to demonstrate and illustrate some of the issues we have gone through. I have included a picture of an ugly tent facility and trailer that we are using to provide some visitor services. We cannot erect a proper building. This has been a really tough issue.

With respect to Goat's Eye Daylodge, this facility was originally approved as part of a long-range plan approved in 1978. It was re-approved by the Director General of Parks in 1986. It was approved with some amendments in 1992 by the then minister. However, various studies began that had the effect of negating the impacts or negating the approvals.

I would like to go specifically to a very specific set of approvals that came out of all of this. In 1993, a screening decision was prepared by Mr. Charlie Zinkan, who was then superintendent of the park, and Dr. Bruce Lesson, chief environmental officer, specifically with regard to Goat's Eye. That decision included the following:

Environmental impacts predicted to result from the proposed development of Goat's Eye Mountain for skiing at Sunshine are either insignificant or mitigable with known technology...

It is concluded to approve the Sunshine Village Goat's Eye...Proposal...

At that time, the project consisted of three phases. Only the first has been built. It was to include three lifts and a daylodge. However, only the first phase was built. Temporary facilities were put in place to provide visitor services, and we never got beyond those visitor facilities because of various lawsuits by CPAWS against the federal government.

After the lawsuits were started, a CEAA panel was created to settle the lawsuits with the environmental groups. After many years, the panel was dissolved because it was patently unfair. It was wrong to subject an approved area, set aside by this government, zoned for skiing, to the same type of scrutiny that a brand new, major project such as the diamond mine in the Northwest Territories would be subject to.

It goes on and on. I have included examples in here that you can read. The daylodge saga has been a very difficult one, even as recently as last year. Mr. Tom Lee, CEO of Parks, wrote me a letter, in which he said that the daylodge project can be considered under the interim rules, and he asked me to work with Mr. Zinkan. We were told that we could submit the daylodge and that it would be subject to an environmental screening -- this, despite the fact that, a few years earlier, Mr. Zinkan and Dr. Leeson had signed off saying environmental impacts were insignificant.

We did another screening, working with terms of reference that were provided to us. We were moving through that process when, this March, we received a letter advising us that a number of organizations had expressed concerns with Parks Canada considering the proposal. As such, the project was put on hold.

Later in the year we received a copy of a letter from Dr. Leeson to CEAA, which said they were wrong, that the screening level was no longer acceptable and now a comprehensive study was required. A comprehensive study built the alliance pipeline across three provinces and across rivers. I do not know how many rivers were affected as a result of that crossing. This is the very same Dr. Leeson who, a few years earlier, had approved the project. We do not have an open, transparent process. We still have a lot of confusion.

I can give you another case in point of some of the problems at Sunshine. I have given you a map. The only access to Sunshine is by a gondola. To my knowledge, Sunshine is the only ski area in North America that relies on a single lift. One can ski on several mountains at Sunshine, but there is only one way from the parking lot to the ski area. The lift is a good, reliable workhorse. It is slow and steady. The problem is that everybody wants to arrive between 8:30 and 10:00 in the morning. This lift does not have enough capacity. Should it break down, for any reason, we are out of business.

More important, the gondola is getting old. It is 20 years old. It is not quite in the same league as the Sea King helicopters but it requires tremendous maintenance to keep it going. We can no longer just call the factory up and ask for parts. Everything has to be custom made. I cannot go to Canadian Tire to get a part. We have to go to the blue prints of 20 years ago and go back to manufacturers and ask them to mill us parts. It gets more difficult each day to keep it running. A parallel lift was always provided for in our plan.

So, on the one hand, we are zoned to be a ski area, we have a long-term lease, but on the other we are under constant attack by those who do not want to see any human use. Or perhaps they only want the use for themselves.

We are even in a position where, under our lease, if there is a deficiency in service, the government can order us to make improvements. If we do not make the improvements, they can grant other licenses or leases within the area to others to make the improvements. So they can tell us to make things better. We are told to provide a first-class ski area, we I cannot meet that. We are a cornerstone of winter tourism; we ask visitors to this country, to these icons of Canada, our national parks. Whether they come here from Europe, from America, their first and perhaps sometimes only impression of Canada is Calgary airport and Banff National Park. I do not think the impression that we want to give them is one of portable toilets and third-world conditions. We want first-class facilities that are representative of the national parks.

I wish to speak about two specific issues that I respectfully request you consider as amendments to this bill. At committee in the Commons, an amendment was made to the clause dealing with ecological integrity. The words "maintenance or restoration" were added. We are very concerned about that provision. We were advised legally that every time a lease comes up for renewal in a national park there will be legal challenges if the words "or restoration" are there. "Restoration" is really a nice term for "removal of the facilities."

The advice we were given is that environmental organizations will probably go to court every time a lease is renewed, arguing that the ministry did not adequately consider removal of these facilities. Hence, we believe the wording to be very dangerous and recommend that it be removed. Maintenance of ecological integrity is fine but not restoration.

The second one that I would request is that in the current act, section 8.3 -- I believe it is clause 36 in the new one -- there is a special section relating to ski areas. There are to be no new ski areas. The four ski areas that are there are permitted and they are set out in schedule. But because of this constant controversy over whether we conform -- and we do we conform to zoning, we conform to our lease, we conform to the National Parks Act -- we propose the following amendment to the clause dealing with ski areas:

Notwithstanding any Act of Parliament, the use of public lands designated as a commercial ski area described in Schedule 5 is hereby authorized and shall be deemed to be a permitted use in the park in which they are located and shall not be declared or form part of a wilderness area in accordance with this Act.

These are very small areas of park that were set aside for human use, in accordance with the primary purpose of the Parks Act, and we would like to see the clause dealing with ski areas strengthened to recognize that permitted use.

Senator Kenny: Welcome, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Scurfield. Could you tell me how many times in the past decade, including this piece of legislation, the rules have been changed on your planning process?

Mr. Scurfield: It just happens regularly. I could not count them. The case in point is the correspondence even on the daylodge. Innumerable times, sir.

Senator Kenny: How do you get notice of these changes?

Mr. Scurfield: We get a letter sometimes. Sometimes we do not even hear about it. Sometimes we read about it in the paper and we scramble and ask for representation before a committee like this. It is a very obscure process. Nothing is clear or transparent.

Senator Kenny: It is not clear to me from your brief, Mr. Scurfield, if you go back to your initial approval from Mr. Leeson and Mr. Zinkan, did you go ahead and do anything after you got that approval? You described it to the committee just now saying they signed off on it. Once they signed off on it, did you start spending money or start building things?

Mr. Scurfield: Yes. After the signoff we cleared the ski runs and put in the first phase, the Goat's Eye run chair lift.

Senator Kenny: Which they had approved.

Mr. Scurfield: Yes. There were certainly lawsuits involved. As I said, the environmental groups tried to stop it but eventually, in the Federal Court, the decision to go ahead was ratified. However, that first year, because of delays, we were not able to erect a proper permanent building so we put in the trailer. The expectation was that it would be there for one year. Five years later, it is still there. They allowed us to add a temporary tent to it.

Senator Kenny: So folks are going halfway up the mountain to use a trailer and a tent.

Mr. Scurfield: And portable toilets, yes, sir.

Senator Kenny: It seems to me you are talking about a three-phase plan.

Mr. Scurfield: It was to be done in a three phases. It is just a subsection of the ski area plans. They were meant to be multi-year plans because they were 42-year leases.

Senator Kenny: You got all three phases approved.

Mr. Scurfield: Yes.

Senator Kenny: Was one phase dependent on the subsequent phases? Are the phases related to each other?

Mr. Scurfield: The phases are all related to each other, yes.

Senator Kenny: So you put the first phase of the plan into effect, and then you were told what?

Mr. Scurfield: We put in place the first phase of the plan. We were then told that the second phase could not go ahead because further studies were required, even though sign-off had already been given.

Senator Kenny: How did that leave the facility?

Mr. Scurfield: It leaves the facility as a temporary facility, incomplete. As I said, it leaves it providing poor customer service. The conditions are crowded and cramped, and people line up to use inadequate toilet facilities. It is embarrassing.

Senator Kenny: You commented about the gondola. The gondola, as I understand it, is basically the access route to the ski facility.

Mr. Scurfield: Yes.

Senator Kenny: Without going up the gondola, people cannot get to any of the lifts.

Mr. Scurfield: That is the only access to the lifts, yes.

Senator Kenny: You said that the gondola is 20 years old and that you want to twin it. Will you break new ground to twin it or will you follow the same route?

Mr. Scurfield: It will be in the existing right of way. I have included here a bit of a map of our lease area. It is a funny-looking piece of land. I sometimes refer to it as a balloon on a string. There is the access corridor and then it balloons out into the ski area. Where you see on this mid station, that was the Goat's Eye area. That shows three lifts. Only one was built.

Senator Kenny: Were three approved?

Mr. Scurfield: Yes. This was from a Parks Canada document prepared in the 1986 to 1990 planning process. It shows existing and approved lifts, and it shows a parallel lift running alongside the gondola on the same right of way.

Senator Kenny: So in 1986 you had an approval to twin the gondola going up.

Mr. Scurfield: Yes.

Senator Kenny: How far apart would the gondolas be? I can see the lines on the map, but are they farther apart than this room?

Mr. Scurfield: No. One would be there. One would be at this wall.

Senator Kenny: You already have a lift going up that wall and you want to have a parallel one going up that wall.

Mr. Scurfield: In very much the same right of way, yes.

Senator Kenny: What is Parks Canada's position on that?

Mr. Scurfield: Parks Canada's position on that is confused. At present, the position of Mr. Leeson of Canadian Heritage is that a parallel lift cannot be considered until we get a new long-range plan, but again there is a Catch-22: We cannot get a new long-range plan because there are no ski area guidelines. It goes on and on. In effect, they have negated the approvals that were granted by our lease and by this government, by Her Majesty the Queen.

Senator Taylor: You said a parallel lift. Is there not a road? There always used to be a road.

Mr. Scurfield: There is a summer road only.

Senator Taylor: Is the road not used in the winter?

Mr. Scurfield: No. It is a ski trail in the winter.

Senator Kenny: If you are going to have a gondola anyway and it goes up that wall, what are the environmental complaints about having another gondola going up that wall?

Mr. Scurfield: There are no environmental complaints that are scientifically backed. There are many philosophical complaints, and they have to do with how parks are to be used and enjoyed.

Senator Kenny: Mr. Scurfield, if we were designing parks with a clean sheet, if we were starting from scratch, like the parks that are being created with this bill, I do not think anyone on this committee would be in favour of having ski hills. We have also seen the Banff Bow Valley study, which complains about pressure on the park. That study tells us that 20 years from now the park is not going to be like we know it now and that something has to be done to mitigate the pressure on the park. It seems to beg the question of why we should have ski hills there at all. Would we not be better off to come to some sort of arrangement where you get fair payment for the investment you have there? The same would apply to the other ski hills Mr. Cotton talked about, and we could let these folks rewild the area. Is that a bad idea?

Mr. Scurfield: First, if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper, there probably would not be the Trans-Canada Highway in the park. There would still be the Trans-Canada Highway. In the American parks, which sometimes are used as comparisons, there is a different land categorization that goes alongside national parks, and that is called "national forest." It allows for a different use. In the Canadian example, we have gone to park zoning so that we have zoned inside a park. Rather than creating a separate type of land, it is natural forest where you can have roads and ski areas.

Why should there be ski hills in these parks? The Rocky Mountains have some of the best terrain in Canada for skiing. Those are fantastic places. Sunshine gets over 30 feet of snow per year. In terms of ecological impact, people use Sunshine in the winter when the animals are down on the valley floor. The animals do not winter in 30 feet of snow; they go down where there is open water and forage. That is where the game animals go. The carnivores are either hibernating or they are down with the game animals. Therefore, impacts are not as great as our detractors would have you believe.

To answer your question about expropriation or payment for facilities, I could say that it would be fair to me if payment were based on a going-concern basis and not on some question of depreciated values because the facilities have been built in place. The facilities cannot easily be moved or taken away, and they would have very little salvage value if that were done.

While that might be fair to me, I think it would be a tremendous loss to the people of Canada. We are providing recreational opportunities. As we have become an increasingly urbanized society, it is increasingly important for people to be able to get out in nature and to experience it firsthand. Not everybody has the ability to walk 20 miles in the backcountry -- some for lack of time, some for lack of physical ability or lack of knowledge of the mountains. We provide, in many ways, a safe, fun, clean opportunity for people to experience the splendour of our national parks. While I think expropriation and payment might be fair to me, it would certainly not be fair to the people of Canada who would lose those recreational opportunities.

Senator Kenny: Mr. Scurfield, your facility looks like a very complex development. This picture does not represent wilderness to me at all. Considering the footprint that the park has, it seems to me that either we need to find some way to get the bureaucrats off your back and develop the facility in a way that people can enjoy it and have a first-class operation or we need to get you out of there and let the place grow over. I should like your comments on that.

Mr. Scurfield: I think you are absolutely right. We are in a dilemma now, and we cannot fully achieve our permitted use. Either we must be allowed to achieve that permitted use and do a first class job of it -- create something that Canadians should be proud of -- or you should tell us to go away, that you do not want ski areas in the park anymore.

Again, I think that expropriation would be fair to me personally, but it would be bad for the people of Canada. Albertans would be deprived of recreational opportunities. Canadians would be deprived of jobs, sources of revenue and experience in the high country, which really does help renew the spirit and the soul, which is one of the reasons national parks were preserved.

Mr. Cotton: If you want to rewild the parks and deny Canadians the ability to experience the parks, and I am talking about the mountain parks, then the death of skiing is the best way to do it. Skiing occurs during the winter months when visitorship to our parks is at a minimum. Skiing is the key reason that people come in the winter, but only about 25 per cent of visitorship is in the winter. However, that winter visitorship creates a year-round economy. It allows service providers to exist on a year-round basis. While good for re-wilding, the death of skiing would have serious consequences for the ability of Canadians to enjoy the majesty of the parks in the 1 per cent that is now available for human access.

The Chairman: When you say 1 per cent, are you counting all of the ski areas that exist in those parks?

Mr. Cotton: Ski areas are 2/1,000ths of the park areas only in the two parks in which they exist.

The Chairman: I am not talking just about the parks. I am talking about all the ski areas that exist in British Columbia and Alberta. Is that what you are talking about? I just want to be clear about what you mean.

Mr. Cotton: Skiers exist in two national parks, Banff and Jasper. Within that area, they occupy 2/1,000ths of the space under legal lease.

The Chairman: Are you talking about just Banff National Park?

Mr. Cotton: I am talking about both Banff and Jasper. But referring to the four mountain national parks, probably less than 1/1,000th of the space is zoned for human access.

Senator Christensen: I should like two points of clarification. When you started this development, you had a long-range development plan that was approved by Parks Canada.

Mr. Scurfield: Yes. Sunshine Village has a long history, and it has had several leases. When I got involved there was a long-range development plan approved by Parks. The validity of that plan has since been chipped away at by a series of collateral attacks from various other pieces of legislation. That is why I request a clarification of the Act: that is, if it is to be entrenched in law that there are only four ski areas and that there will never be any new ones, let us also entrench in law that those ski areas are a land use with a higher intensity and that different impacts will be allowed there.

Senator Christensen: The original long-range plan that was approved has gradually been chipped away at. You are saying that you are not allowed to continue with that long-range plan in some cases.

Mr. Scurfield: Yes. It is a death by a thousand cuts.

Senator Christensen: You said that the gondola is very old and coming to the end of its life and you want now to twin-track it. Is the new one to replace the old one or in addition to the old one?

Mr. Scurfield: It was always intended that there would be two lifts, and that was so that there would be reliability, because no matter how good a piece of machinery is and how much you maintain it, it will have bad days. I believe we are the only ski area in North America, if not the world, to have only one lift.

Senator Christensen: This is the access lift to get near the park. With two access lifts operating, would it still comply with the original long-term plan and the numbers of persons that would have access to the area?

Mr. Scurfield: Yes.

Senator Adams: It is nice to see you again, Mr. Scurfield. The last time we met was over ten years ago at Lake Louise. The only access to the parking lot then was by bus. Is it still the same?

Mr. Scurfield: Yes.

Senator Adams: You told me last time we met that for over ten years you had applied for permission to build a parking lot, so you have been applying for a parking lot for over 20 years now.

Mr. Scurfield: With that one, we finally said that we would just like to build what was approved.

Senator Adams: From your study of the park area, do you know what percentage of people are there just for pleasure, without skiing? Do you have any records of people who are there purely for the pleasure of the scenery, as opposed to going there for the skiing? What will be there if all the ski areas in Banff are closed down? Do you have any idea what the future will be for the people who live there, if you close down the ski area?

Mr. Scurfield: Skiing represents the single biggest draw to the park in the wintertime, so there would not be many winter visitors. More important, almost all the visitor use in the park is in what we call the front country. Very few people go beyond that. I suspect that if the ski areas were closed, the parks would be like mausoleums in the winter; nobody would be there. The Trans-Canada Highway would go through there, perhaps buried if the environmental extremists got their way. I do not see how Canada would benefit by closing those facilities.

Mr. Cotton: Parks Canada is incapable of telling you how many people go to our parks, what they do and what their impact is on the parks. There has been virtually no human-use research in our parks. Currently, twice a year in Banff, based upon some monitors in the road, it is estimated how many people come during a certain period, and then a model is used to figure out what that is in numbers on an annual basis. As you know, it is the main corridor to British Columbia. They have no knowledge of human use. I have encouraged you to direct Parks Canada to begin to invest some money on human impacts and understanding. There is a dearth of knowledge.

The Bow Valley study, to which you have been referred several times, was supposed to study three components of our parks: the social, the economic and the ecological impacts. Social and economic impacts have never been studied. It is like having a three-legged stool with only one leg standing.

Senator Adams: I do not know how many people have been skiing. I have skiied twice at Lake Louise and I have skiied at Whistler in British Columbia. I like it. I used to spend every weekend in the wintertime at Tremblant in Quebec. At one time a brand new hotel was built right at the bottom of the ski area. At that time I was not a very good skiier, and I pretty well ran into the place. It has become much more developed in the last few years.

Is the policy on development different in the province of Quebec? I imagine you gentlemen are familiar with Tremblant. In the last few years, it has really changed and become built-up with things like condominiums and so on. Has nothing changed in the last ten years in Lake Louise and Banff?

Mr. Scurfield: Nothing of any significance has been built for Sunshine Village in the last 20 years. Certainly, the national parks do not allow condos. We are considered primarily a day-use area, where people either stay in the town of Banff or are day visitors from Calgary or Canmore. I am not asking for that type of intensive development here. We want to be able to implement the plan we have and to provide first-class facilities that Canadians can be proud of and that our international visitors will say are first-class. We are not interested in condos and that type of massive development.

Senator Finnerty: That was a very interesting presentation. Have you dealt with nobody who has common sense?

Mr. Scurfield: No. I should say there are some very good people in Parks Canada but they find themselves in a bureaucracy where they sometimes cannot achieve what they want to achieve. There are some very good people. Charlie Zinkan certainly is a good park manager but he finds that Parks Canada is always responding to the pressure groups, the extremists.

Senator Banks: I have some good news for you that you may not have heard. In a letter to the president of the International Ski Federation, Sheila Copps says that, subject to a two-week public review of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act, in the interests of the safety of the racers she will approve the removal of that island of trees that was in the path of the races.

Mr. Scurfield, we have heard from the people you referred to as environmental -- What was the word you used?

Mr. Scurfield: I use the word "extremists." I could use stronger language. I have tried not to.

Senator Banks: That is fairly strong. Obviously, we are very much aware of the tensions that exist between the kinds of use that I commonly make of the national parks, and I have been going there since the 1940s, on the one hand, and the sometimes perfectly reasoned arguments of people who say, "Look, these are national parks and we are overloading them in a couple of places."

In answer to the questions that we have asked them, specifically with respect to the question of ski hills, those people have said that it is not their intention or their understanding that ski operations per se as they exist will be, or should be, shut down. In fact, their answers have been to the effect that they recognize that the existing ski operations -- they are very careful to say "existing" -- are in fact now a part of the ecology of the mountain parks. They have accepted the fact that ski operations are there, that they are going to continue to exist. I am wondering if you would comment briefly on that. Does that give you any comfort?

Mr. Scurfield: It gives me some comfort. I know there are some moderates out there. I use the term "extremists" because many of the activists who are pushing the cause of rewilding the parks are the same people who were involved in the demonstrations at the World Petroleum Congress that caused Calgary to barricade half the streets. They are professional activists.

I do not get much comfort from the words that you have been careful to recite, because the ski lifts, being mechanical pieces of equipment, must be replaced as they age. If they say they want it to be exactly the same as it is today, that means that, 20 years from now, it is going to be a bunch of rusted old stuff that is not going to be of any use to anybody. Therefore, modernization must take place.

Mr. Cotton: On behalf of Skiing Louise, I want you to understand clearly that we are environmentalists, but we do not like black and white. There is a grey in the middle. This winter, Skiing Louise will run two of its major lifts at half speed because Parks Canada has determined that it has achieved its quota in allowable skiiers. So that will occur.

Skiing Louise is not allowed to adapt to the next trend. Almost all the growth in skiing in the last decade has come from snowboarders. Young kids who could be hanging out at the corner store have embraced the sport and by the tens of thousands now snowboard every weekend. Skiing Louise is not allowed to adapt to that because Parks Canada has determined that it has achieved its maximum potential use now and in the future.

We are environmentalists. Please do not paint us as anything other than that.

Senator Taylor: I think you make a good argument that an area as big as Switzerland should have some areas zoned for people use.

As you probably remember, I skied many years ago when you took over the ski operation. I skied with your father in the area. There were only three or four lifts. I am sure there has been constant pressure by you and all the other ski owners in Norquay and Lake Louise to expand and meet the crowd. Calgary has grown in size since that time from 150,000 people to nearly a million, so there is that pressure.

Is there a point where your expansion will stop? In other words, will lift after lift be built? I think the Canadian public has a right to know. It is like building an apartment building; is it going to be 20 stories high or 40 stories, and is that the end? It might be over time. Have you reached that point? I am sure you have been back to the well many times. When I originally went to the area it had been recently established. When is the end? If you could project that, maybe you would have a better case than if the public thinks you are going to be back every couple of year to get a little more.

Mr. Scurfield: I think the issue there, Senator Taylor, is not of expanding the legal boundaries but of an intensification of use within those boundaries. It is not something that is going to continue spreading; but a double chair may be replaced with a quad chair. Unbuilt components of the long-range plans that were approved a couple of decades ago should be allowed to proceed, because they were multi-year plans. The land was set aside and zoned.

In your example of construction, you can build the permitted use; everybody knows it is coming. We do not want to double the size of the area or anything like that, but we do want to build what we were told we could build when we were given our lease.

Senator Taylor: Have the boundaries that you are allowed to operate in changed in the last 30 years?

Mr. Scurfield: This lease boundary that you see here was put in place in 1981 when the most recent Sunshine lease was granted. National park leases are for only a 42-year period. I believe that before Sunshine had a long-term lease it had a series of licences of occupation and other forms of title. This is the legal description that is in our lease from Her Majesty, and it has not changed.

In terms of environmental protection, everything we do is done very carefully. We use helicopters to build lifts so we do not build roads into the alpine. We actually remove sods and replant them. We are very careful about preserving rare plants and protecting the flora and the fauna of the area, and we are proud to do that.

Senator Banks: Mr. Cotton, respecting what you said about the limits put on skiiers, do you or Mr. Scurfield think there should be any limit on skiiers? The second part of the question is this: What assurance could you give someone who reasonably believes there ought to be some limit that the increase in traffic to the bottom of the lifts -- which would, I assume, be close to doubled by the addition of a new gondola -- would not place additional pressures on those upward ski lifts, which would make a reasonable business operator say, "I have twice as many people up there; I need twice as much equipment. I need more space, I need more lifts"? Is this not the arms race?

Mr. Cotton: Let me go through our side, the other three ski areas. All ski areas operate on no net negative environmental impact. We all accept quotas, but let us make them reasonable. Let us make them to standards. Plus, it has already been determined autocratically that there will never be another expansion of the parking lot in the ski areas. That is part of the proposed new ski areas guidelines.

We can be inventive. We can figure out green solutions. We can use buses. We can use many things, but all we want is something that is reasonable.

The ski areas have legal boundaries. They do not want to expand outside of them. They are not expansionists. They just want to use the territory they have. We are not in a never-ending arms race. All we want is to say let us use these lands, these wilderness ski areas, no condos, no housing, so that Canadians and visitors can stand atop Lake Louise and enjoy thousands and thousands of square kilometres of wilderness in all its majesty. That is all we are asking for.

Mr. Scurfield: I would like to follow up the question specifically about the gondola and the parallel lift. The point there is that skiiers arrive at a certain time of day, usually 9:00 a.m. They all want to be up there by 10:00 a.m. Right now, we have unacceptably long lines. We would like to better serve the visitors presently coming to our area. Again, to pick up on Mr. Cotton's point, it is not our desire to expand the land mass. However, we would like to take the land mass and be able to build what was promised and to be able to serve our customers at a standard that does meet first-class, world-class standards -- and that does not include standing in line for half an hour.

The Chairman: Thank you both for coming. We are now going in camera to discuss what we have heard today and the observations, after which we will return and go through clause by clause.

The committee continued in camera.

The committee resumed in public.

The Chairman: We are now in public session. Is it agreed, senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 1 stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 2 to 12 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 13 to 31 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 32 to 42 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall clauses 43 to 70.1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 71 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall Schedules 1 to 5 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall the bill carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Is it agreed that the proposed observations be appended to the report?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Is it agreed that I report this bill with the observations to the Senate today?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Taylor: Any need to request that you request third reading also be given today?

Senator Banks: I sponsored it.

The Chairman: Thank you all.

The committee adjourned.