Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 5 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 11, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 28, to amend the Canada National Parks Act, met this day at 5:53 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. Before we begin, it would be helpful if you would take the maps from the package before you. They are quite instructive and informative and I suspect our guests will refer to them. In any case, they will be helpful to us in forming questions in respect of Bill C-28. Today we will hear from Mr. Alan Latourelle and Ms. Susan Katz from Parks Canada.
We will also hear from Ms. Sandra Leduc from Justice Canada.
Mr. Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, I am pleased to appear before you today to address Bill C-28, to amend the Canada National Parks Act.
Bill C-28 removes lands from Pacific Rim National Park Reserve and Riding Mountain National Park for Indian reserve purposes. These amendments to the Canada National Parks Act will accomplish two things: First, the removal of lands from Pacific Rim will resolve an acute housing shortage on the Esowista Indian Reserve of the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, and the removal of lands from Riding Mountain will rectify an error that occurred in the implementation of a specific land claim agreement in the year 2000. These land removals can only be done by amending the Canada National Parks Act. I want to emphasize that Bill C-28 will not serve as a precedent for other national parks. These are unique circumstances that need to be addressed collectively. I will say a word about environmental considerations.
The removal of 86.4 hectares of land from Pacific Rim National Park Reserve will not unduly compromise the park's ecological integrity objectives. The Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation has made a commitment to cooperate with Parks Canada to provide for the long-term protection of the natural and cultural resources of the parklands surrounding the Esowista Indian Reserve.
It should be noted that the case of Pacific Rim National Park Reserve flows from a commitment that we made as an organization in 1970, when the national park reserve was established. At that time, the issue of shortage within the community had been identified and we made a commitment to look at those issues in the future. We are now, 35 years later, addressing a commitment we made as part of the national park reserve commitment. Both the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have made commitments to develop and maintain the lands in ways that respect the ecological integrity of the park.
To provide for appropriate protection of adjacent parklands, a $2.5-million mitigation fund will be provided to Parks Canada from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Thus, a number of measures will be in place to ensure a sustainable community living in harmony with the park. The removal of 5 hectares from Riding Mountain will not have an impact on the ecological integrity of the park. This is a correction of the incorrect legal survey that was done in 2000.
Bill C-28 enjoys broad public support. For example, the following bodies have indicated their support for the proposed land withdrawal from Pacific Rim: environmental non-government organizations, including the Sierra Club, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, as well as provincial and regional governments.
While land is being withdrawn from Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, it represents less than 1 per cent of the park's land base. It should also be noted that Pacific Rim is located within the larger cluster of protected areas that enhances the ecological integrity of the park.
I thank honourable senators for our appearance today. I am prepared to answer any questions they may have.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senator Milne: Why has it taken so long to bring this before us? Why does it have to happen in the dying days of Parliament, before an election?
These are small parcels of land. Who is opposed and why are they opposed?
Mr. Latourelle: The national park reserve was established in the 1970s. At that time, there was a commitment such that if there were an increased requirement within the reserve, we would look at it in the future.
When the park was initially established, this was a seasonal community, and has been transformed now into a permanent, year-round community for the First Nations. We were approached by the First Nations three years ago to look at this issue. At that time, we began discussions with the Aboriginal community to look at their housing shortfall.
The Chairman: Which of the two parcels are you talking about?
Mr. Latourelle: Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. It is through part of that process that we reached a tentative agreement approximately one year ago.
As a result of that tentative agreement, we had to obtain bilingual surveys and the legal process forced some delays in bringing this proposed legislation forward.
Currently, there are significant housing shortfall issues in the community. As an organization, we want to live up to the initial commitment that we made. Again, due to legal survey issues, there has been a delay in the process. That is why we are so late bringing it before the House and the Senate.
Interestingly enough, I am not aware of anyone opposing this bill. When we recommend removing lands from national parks, we take that very seriously because of the long-term impacts. In this case, all the stakeholder environmental groups that we deal with have provided letters of support for this proposal, recognizing the housing issues faced by the Aboriginal community.
Senator Milne: The land in Riding Mountain National Park is a half-section.
The Chairman: It is 4.5 hectares.
Mr. Latourelle: Yes, in Riding Mountain.
Senator Milne: It has not been properly mapped on this. I see ``part fractional.'' Is it the Baxter quarter you are talking about?
Mr. Latourelle: On the Baxter quarter, the white line is the parcel of land we are talking about.
Senator Milne: The white line going up and down, so it is a long, narrow strip.
Mr. Latourelle: Exactly. There was an error in the survey at that point.
Senator Milne: How many hectares are we talking about in Pacific Rim?
Mr. Latourelle: It is 86.4 hectares, so less than 1 per cent of the park.
Senator Milne: Is it Parcel 1, or Esowista IR 3?
Mr. Latourelle: It is Parcel 1.
Senator Milne: On the large-scale map?
Mr. Latourelle: Yes.
The Chairman: Is it correct that on the detailed map, Esowista IR 3 is an existing Indian reserve?
Mr. Latourelle: That is correct.
The Chairman: Parcel 1 will be added to that Indian reserve, connected by the right of way that is also being made part of the reserve.
Mr. Latourelle: That is correct.
I should add that although it may not look that way on the map, it is close to the Esowista Reserve. This was based on our in-house study on wildlife movement and so on. This is the area that we identified as having the least impact ecologically on the park in terms of the expansion of the reserve.
Senator Christensen: I was pleased to see there will be monitoring of the impacts and that $2.5 million has been set aside. The monitoring goes on for a number of years. What assurance is there that there will be sufficient funds to complete that monitoring?
Mr. Latourelle: In terms of our discussions with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, we feel comfortable that with the $2.5 million investment, we will be able to monitor it. That is also supplemented by our ongoing research budgets that are currently allocated to that national park reserve.
Senator Christensen: In the case of the other one, where you have the two reserves that are joined by a road, certainly there has been a strategic environmental assessment. Other than the vehicle traffic on the road, what steps are being taken to ensure that there are no other impacts on the roadside, such as services being developed that will expand into the park?
Mr. Latourelle: What we are excising from the park is strictly what is in white on that map. The federal government will still own the green areas on both sides of the roadway as a national park reserve, and there will be no development on that land. We have full control of that land.
Senator Milne: Why would they not run the road right along the edge of the airport lands, which are disturbed anyway?
Mr. Latourelle: I apologize for not having that detailed information. From what I recall, we did some review of the land site per se and looked at the best location for that road, based on the waters, the creeks and so on. That is what I remember, but I do not have more detailed information on the exact location.
The Chairman: The reason might be topographical. Would you let our clerk know when you find the answer to that?
Mr. Latourelle: I would be pleased to do so.
Senator Kinsella: Are there any federally owned Crown lands either adjacent to or contiguous with the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve?
Mr. Latourelle: My understanding is that the lands adjoining the national park are mostly provincial Crown lands or private land holdings.
Senator Kinsella: There is no federal Crown land at all?
Mr. Latourelle: That is my understanding.
Senator Kinsella: Is there any federal Crown land adjacent to the Riding Mountain National Park?
Mr. Latourelle: My understanding is that it is mostly privately owned farmland.
Senator Kinsella: I think that as a matter of public policy in Canada, we should have a principle that when we take land from our park system for whatever purpose, it should be replaced by an equal if not greater amount of land from the Crown land bank, as it were. Therefore, I was interested in the nearest parcel of federal Crown land to both of these national parks.
The Chairman: Provincial Crown land cannot simply be taken over by the federal government without the agreement of the province. It is their property.
I want to ensure I understand. We do not today have the answer to Senator Kinsella's question, that is to say, if there is any federal Crown land contiguous to either of these reserves, not necessarily to the parcels that are being transferred, which could be added to the reserves in lieu of the land that is being taken.
Mr. Latourelle: I can assure you there is no federal land contiguous to the reserves, because that would have been the first option.
Senator Kinsella: We do not mean the reserves. We mean the federal park.
Mr. Latourelle: I can provide confirmation to the committee.
Senator Kinsella: Senator Milne is suggesting that all Crown land now is under provincial control.
Senator Milne: It certainly is in Ontario.
Senator Kinsella: Is there any Crown land, even if provincially regulated, that runs adjacent to either of these two parks? It will be interesting to see whether federal-provincial negotiations should be entered into, because I should think the province has an interest. If they are building a provincial highway and want to go through a federal park, they might well be interested in swapping some provincial Crown land, or indeed, if the province had an interest, as I am sure they do in this instance, in seeing that the First Nations get the land they need. If we could get some information on that, I would appreciate it.
The Chairman: How soon do you think it would be possible for us to get that information, Mr. Latourelle?
Mr. Latourelle: Tomorrow morning.
The Chairman: I just saw your legal adviser flinch. Tomorrow morning.
Mr. Latourelle: There are two points I should like to make. First, through the Canada National Parks Act, we are withdrawing some lands from our parks. We do not take that decision lightly.
As for the future, the senators may want to know that over the next five years, we are looking at a 50-per-cent increase in the land mass protected through national parks across Canada. We have a commitment to establish ten new national parks and five marine conservation areas and to expand three existing national parks.
In terms of the specific site issues, our long-term objective in Pacific Rim is to replace those 86.4 hectares. What were not able to do is to reach an agreement with the province or with other partners within the short time frame we had. Park expansion requires significant public consultation and the agreement of the province, so we are working with the provincial government in British Columbia, for example, to look at opportunities. However, we are not able to take 86 hectares out now and replace it immediately. Nevertheless, our long-term objective — and it may take up to 10 years to achieve it — is still to look at those opportunities.
Senator Kinsella: Where will the land mass be? Where will you find that land mass to create these new parks?
Mr. Latourelle: Again, each situation is different, but we will work with the provincial government, in this case, British Columbia, over time to see if there are opportunities for them to transfer part of their Crown lands to the federal government through a federal-provincial agreement. We would look at those types of processes. Often, we do not look at each park in isolation. We develop an overall agreement that deals with all the parks in the province.
Senator Kinsella: Do you think that my proposition is the kind of thing around which, in federal-provincial discussions, we might develop a protocol for when we take land out of a park for a public interest purpose? In this instance, it would be the First Nations land base; it could be a hydro line or an easement or a highway, whatever the public interest purpose might be. However, as a policy principle, we would make every effort — as Parks Canada would make every effort — to replace that with other land, even if it meant negotiating with the provinces. I take it you do that all the time?
Mr. Latourelle: It is a principle that we currently use within the organization. We do not have a written policy on it. That was our first attempt, in terms of Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, to try to ensure that the total land mass would not be different. However, there are in fact very few situations where lands are withdrawn from national parks. In the case of most land claim agreements, for example, the lands offered by the federal government are outside the national parks. The two cases we have before us are unique. We never give up any land, for example, for a highway through a national park. It is against policy.
The Chairman: You said three cases. You mean two?
Mr. Latourelle: Sorry, two cases.
The Chairman: This is not specific and is a little unfair, but I hope that when you increase the acreage of federal parks in Canada, you will receive a commensurate amount of money with which to properly deal with those parks. That has been a concern of this committee for a long time. It is all very well to go around adding parks, but the parks are having great difficulty in operating properly, to the extent that we are now talking about stiff user fees.
Mr. Latourelle: It has been confirmed through Budget 2003 that all the funds for the new park expansion have been provided to Parks Canada. In the past, we have had to absorb new parks within our existing base. In Budget 2003, we received funding for the last four parks we created, plus the expansion we are looking at.
The Chairman: We will be watching that closely.
Senator Finnerty: How close is Tofino to this proposed reserve? Is it right alongside?
Mr. Latourelle: I was there last summer. It is probably about 4 or 5 kilometres.
Senator Finnerty: How do the people of Tofino feel about this?
Mr. Latourelle: In the discussions we had with the elected officials, from the regional government and also the provincial government, they were supportive. The Government of British Columbia has to agree to this transfer as part of a federal-provincial agreement made when we initially established a national park reserve, and we have received their support also.
Senator Finnerty: It is a magnificent area.
Senator Cochrane: You were saying, Mr. Latourelle, that these two parks — these 86 hectares — are being handed over to address the problems of housing shortages, overcrowding, infrastructure and so on.
Will this be enough in the long term? The population is still growing and the housing demand will still be there. Can you give us a sense of the population growth and the community development projections for the Esowista Reserve? Are they adequately addressed with this bill, and is there anything in here that would prevent the community from revisiting this arrangement with the federal government in the future?
Mr. Latourelle: According to the agreement in principle that we have reached with the First Nations, this would meet their housing needs for the next 25 years. Beyond that, if there is an increased need, the agreement states that they would be working with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to look at land outside of the national parks. In fact, there is a commitment in the agreement in principle that we signed with them that they would not request more lands within the national park if there are additional housing needs beyond that 25-year horizon and beyond the land that we are proposing to provide through this bill.
Senator Cochrane: Why could not that land have been used instead of the land from this park?
Mr. Latourelle: The lands for 25 years out have not yet been identified. If there is a requirement, there is a commitment through the agreement from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to look at other options. I go back to the 1970s, when we established a national park reserve. At that time, the First Nations had raised issues of future requirements; and we made a commitment when we established the national park that we would seriously consider those issues and deal with them in the future. Some 35 years later, they do have significant social pressures and we are assisting in dealing with them as part of that initial commitment.
Senator Cochrane: What is the representation of Aboriginal people within Parks Canada, within those two reserves? We know that many of the national parks have a full-time staff member who coordinates issues with the Aboriginal people. Is this the case with these two? Is there a staff person who coordinates the communication with the Aboriginal people?
Mr. Latourelle: There are different people. First, 8.2 per cent of Parks Canada's workforce is Aboriginal; close to 10 per cent of our executives at the park level is Aboriginal. Most of the discussions are held between the field unit superintendent and the chief or the representative, but we also have Aboriginal affairs officers who develop relationships with those communities.
Senator Cochrane: I am talking about these two parks, Pacific Rim and Riding Mountain. Do you have a staff person in these two areas to liaise with the Aboriginal communities?
Mr. Latourelle: Yes we do, in both cases.
Senator Cochrane: How long have they been there?
Mr. Latourelle: In Pacific Rim, it is a new individual, but the position has existed for some three or four years. We had someone in that position before. In Riding Mountain, my recollection is it is more recent, probably within the last year or so. In Riding Mountain we have what we call a senior officials' forum, in which the director general for Western Canada of Parks Canada and the superintendent of Riding Mountain meet with the Aboriginal community representative on a quarterly basis. That has been ongoing for five or six years; I used to be part of that committee.
Senator Cochrane: Can you give us some idea of the population growth?
Ms. Susan Katz, Director, Policy and Legislation, Parks Canada Agency: I have some figures that might help you, senator. The population of Esowista at the moment is approximately 175 people. It is a population that is growing at approximately 2 per cent a year. There is also another settled reserve of the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, on Meares Island. The population on that settlement is 182 persons. The community on Meares Island is also suffering similar problems to the community on Esowista. The housing shortage that this land withdrawal would deal with would address the problems of both the Esowista community and the Meares Island community.
There have been some population projections developed for the First Nation, looking out over the next 25 to 50 years. The First Nation is expected to grow to some 800 persons. As Mr. Latourelle has indicated, the land being withdrawn from the park reserve will accommodate approximately 160 houses, 35 of which are required within the short term. Any requirements supplementary to that would be dealt with on land sourced outside the park.
The Chairman: Before we leave that, Ms. Katz, would you tell us where Meares Island is on the detailed map, or does it not show up on that map?
Ms. Katz: Meares Island does not show up on that map. Meares Island is just off Tofino. It is just a short distance from the town.
The Chairman: It is in the Long Beach Unit, though, is that correct?
Ms. Katz: Yes, it is.
The Chairman: Mr. Latourelle, you said that this is not creating a precedent. Is that because that was done before?
Mr. Latourelle: No, because it is unique.
The Chairman: If it is unique, it is creating a precedent.
Mr. Latourelle: The situation we are facing here is unique in the sense that there are only two Aboriginal communities that I know of that are totally surrounded by a national park. In this specific case, it is the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. We made a commitment when we established the park in terms of the Indian reserve requirements.
The Chairman: Do other such situations obtain anywhere else?
Mr. Latourelle: Where we made a commitment to an Aboriginal community within a park? No. There is only one other that I am aware of, in Wood Buffalo National Park, where we have an Aboriginal community totally surrounded by a park. However, we do not have the type of commitment there that we made when we established this national park.
Senator Lawson: In your response to Senator Kinsella, you talked about replacing these 86-plus hectares. If you were to make a trade with the provincial government, it would not necessarily be at this location; it might be at a different park in a different location somewhere in B.C., might it not?
Mr. Latourelle: Our objective in the long term would be to look at opportunities to add to this national park reserve over the next decade.
Senator Lawson: Does the provincial government have much land around there?
Mr. Latourelle: Yes, they do, there are significant provincial Crown lands.
Senator Lawson: The B.C. government has signed off on the program you put together here?
Mr. Latourelle: They have. When the national park reserve was established, it was through an MOU, so any changes required their consent.
Senator Lawson: The Esowista Reserve is shown on the detailed map in white, the IR 3. As I understand it, the Esowista were more interested in having additional property on the water, and as a matter of policy you decided not to do that?
Mr. Latourelle: That is correct. The exact size of the land that they required and also the location were quite different from what you have before you on the map. We came to an agreement with them based on our best science in terms of wildlife movement and the ecological impact on the park.
Senator Lawson: There was some old growth forest down here by the water, and on the 86-plus hectares that you made available for them, a minimal amount of timber had been clear-cut or logged off before?
Mr. Latourelle: It had been logged, that is correct.
Senator Lawson: It was ideally suited for housing?
Mr. Latourelle: It was already disturbed land.
Senator Lawson: In reviewing it and having had the benefit of sitting down with some of the parks people and the environmental people to go over this, it seems in my simple judgment that you had a difficult problem; and somebody applied some common sense and good management to not only satisfy the desires of the Esowista, their present needs for housing and their future needs for the next 25 years and all the other matters contained in the agreement, but in addition to that, remarkably, got the unanimous consent of people like Greenpeace and every agency around there. That is a remarkable achievement by the parks people and one worthy of support because it is unique in itself.
The Chairman: The parks people do good work.
Senator Milne: When I look at the Riding Mountain strip of land, that is one section long and about 10 feet wide, in order to make up some 4-odd hectares. It is not a significant chunk and I can see it is surrounded.
When you say that the land in the Pacific Rim is completely surrounded by a national park, it is not. It is bang on the edge of an airport. It may be surrounded on all other sides by a national park.
The Chairman: If you look at what is called the working protocol area, there is a bumper area that exists between the border of the airport and the lands that are contemplated for transfer here.
Senator Milne: It looks even narrower than the 10-foot strip that I am looking at in Riding Mountain.
The Chairman: It is enough that you cannot see the airport through the trees; it is surrounded by park.
Senator Milne: Is it that narrow?
Mr. Latourelle: It is very narrow.
The Chairman: We have an undertaking from our witnesses that they will get us some information as soon as possible.
Do senators have it in mind to wait upon anything or do you wish to take that information we will get into account? Do we wish to proceed now?
Senator Spivak: Is it true that there was talk some time back about enlarging Pacific Rim? Has there been a move to enlarge it? Will that have any impact? The park is immensely popular; the trail is, anyway.
Mr. Latourelle: Yes, the long-term objective would be to look at expansion when opportunities present themselves. We have three priorities for our national parks system in terms of expansions that we are aggressively pursuing: Nahanni National Park Reserve; the Flathead area, near Waterton, is another example; and then Tuktut Nogait National Park. Those are the three priority areas on which we are putting an emphasis.
If there were opportunities in Pacific Rim, we would have to do the appropriate public consultation and work with the provincial government. However, clearly we would seize those opportunities.
Senator Spivak: Where on this map would that expansion take place? What are the possibilities?
Mr. Latourelle: We have not looked at the specific possibilities on that map because most of the land surrounding the national park is provincially owned land that is currently being used for logging, for example, and those types of activities.
Senator Spivak: That land is uninhabited and undeveloped?
Mr. Latourelle: A significant portion of it is Crown land that is being logged or used for other purposes.
The Chairman: As a general rule, provincial governments do not jump up and down with glee when it is proposed that an area should become a national park rather than Crown land. You gave the example of Waterton. The B.C. government is not interested in enlarging that.
Senator Spivak: There is another issue, of course, with Waterton, and that is the wildlife in the surrounding area. If you develop land close to a national park, you need a huge buffer area.
Are you saying that there are no long-term plans to do that, and that this is totally unrelated and will not be a precedent for further encroachment on the park?
Mr. Latourelle: That is correct. This is a one-time deal.
Senator Spivak: How is that legally enforceable? What it the mechanism?
Mr. Latourelle: The assurance that honourable senators have is that any changes to land masses within national parks require an act of Parliament. It requires a change to the National Parks Act. Parks Canada, a minister or local communities cannot impact the size of a national park without a debate in both Houses.
Senator Spivak: That is not exactly what I would consider an iron-bound contract.
Senator Milne: Mr. Chairman, we do not normally hear evidence on a bill and then proceed to clause-by-clause study at the same meeting, but this seems fairly straightforward and I move that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
The answers to questions that the witnesses have undertaken to provide in the morning will, I am sure, provide Senator Kinsella with some ammunition for third reading debate.
Senator Cochrane: Are there many visitors to these two parks throughout the year?
Mr. Latourelle: Yes, there are. In Pacific Rim National Park we have the world-renowned West Coast Trail that attracts many visitors. As well, there are camping facilities in the park and many people visit the beach during the summer months.
Senator Cochrane: Can you give me a number?
Mr. Latourelle: I do not have a number with me.
Senator Spivak: How far in advance does one have to make a reservation to get on the West Coast Trail?
Mr. Latourelle: You must reserve close to a year in advance.
Senator Spivak: That is your answer, Senator Cochrane.
Senator Cochrane: I must go there.
The Chairman: Riding Mountain is also well attended.
Senator Spivak: It is not exactly in the same class, although it is a very nice park.
Mr. Latourelle: They are all representative of different parts of the country.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I have a motion to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. As this is a very short bill, I would entertain a motion to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration and report the bill as is.
Senator Milne: So moved.
The Chairman: Senator Milne moves that we dispense with clause-by-clause consideration and report the bill unamended.
Senator Spivak: On division.
Senator Austin: You do not want people in Manitoba to think you do not want to help the Aboriginal community there.
The Chairman: Mr. Latourelle, is there anything you would like to add?
Mr. Latourelle: As the head of the organization, this is an important bill for me because it allows us to meet our commitment to the First Nations. We made a commitment in good faith in the 1970s and this is an opportunity for Parks Canada to show that we care about these communities and that we live up to our commitments.
The Chairman: Can you assure us that there is no opposition to this bill from any stakeholder?
Mr. Latourelle: I have not seen any opposition from anyone on this. In fact, we have received support from all environmental groups, who generally would not be very supportive of reducing the size of a national park.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the motion is to dispense with clause-by-clause consideration and report the bill unamended.
Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, honourable senators and witnesses.
The committee adjourned.