Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 16 - Evidence - June 4, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 4, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which were referred Bill S-211, An Act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians, and Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada), met this day at 4:19 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome. I'm Kelvin Ogilvie, from Nova Scotia, Chair of the Committee. I will start by asking my colleagues on the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton from Ontario and I am Deputy Chair of the Committee.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia. Welcome to our committee.
Senator Chaput: Maria Chaput from Manitoba. Welcome.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth from Toronto.
Senator Seth: Asha Seth from Toronto.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton from Toronto.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec. Welcome.
The Chair: I, too, want to formally welcome Senator Nancy Greene Raine to our committee. We are here to study Bill S-211, An Act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians. As we have identified, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Raine is here. I will invite her to make a presentation and then we will open the floor to questions.
Hon. Nancy Greene Raine, sponsor of the bill: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to be here finally. I am surprised it took so long, because this bill has all-party support in both Houses, but I have learned that it takes quite a while to work its way through the process.
I introduced this bill in the Senate last November. I appreciate all the senators who have spoken in support of it from both sides. I am sorry that not all those who wanted to speak were able to. Hopefully, they will have a chance at third reading.
It was good to hear about a lot of personal commitment to physical activity and to hear individual senators tell their stories. I introduced the bill because I am very concerned about the rising rates of obesity, as are all senators whom I have spoken to. I am especially concerned about the rising levels of obesity among young people. We are calling this an "epidemic of obesity." You know all about it. I am happy to hear that you are planning sometime in the future to study it in this committee, because we need to work hard to find solutions.
One in four Canadian adults are obese, and over 60 per cent of us are overweight. These rates have doubled in the last 30 years. One in three children are overweight or obese and less than 15 per cent of children get the recommended amount of daily physical activity. Over 2 million Canadians have diabetes. B.C. estimates that, if things don't change by 2030, then B.C. alone could have more than 750,000 cases of diabetes, and that's not a good way to live. The health costs are staggering with 2008 figures estimated at $4.6 billion; and we know it is rising.
This is a simple bill to establish the first Saturday in June as National Health and Fitness Day. It calls on all levels of government, the private sector and citizens to promote health and fitness one day a year and to create a focus of attention on this issue. I am calling on them to mark the day with local events celebrating and promoting health and fitness.
Next Saturday is National Health and Fitness Day. A lot of things are happening across the country. I am pleased that British Columbia and Alberta have proclaimed health and fitness days in their provinces. I am also proud that Yukon has every municipality signed on for this initiative. Last weekend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities also endorsed the national health and fitness day, and 143 municipalities have made proclamations.
My short-term goal is to have 400 or 500 by this time next year. They are coming in at the rate of two or three a day, so it's starting to snowball. My long-term goal, which we should embrace as a country, is for Canadian citizens to be the healthiest and fittest in the world. There is no reason we can't do that if we really go after it.
It's great to have the endorsement of a lot of different organizations like the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Medical Association, the Nurses Association, Physical and Health Education Canada, the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, the Trans Canada Trail, Fitness Industry Council of Canada, ParticipACTION, Canada Bikes and Canadian Sport for Life.
All kinds of things are happening in Canada. There is no doubt that every level of government is engaged in promoting healthy living. Multisectoral partnerships are coming to fruition. A good example is the ACTIVE AT SCHOOL partnership between Health Canada and Canadian Tire Corporation to engage and find ways to get equipment for children's sports to expand the number of kids who participate. There is another great program called Get BUSY that is a partneship between the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada and Sun Life Financial. We see the private sector getting on board to do their share.
For national health and fitness day, hundreds of private gyms across Canada will open their doors free of charge to the public to promote the programs they offer.
I am happy to say that the Minister of Health, Rona Ambrose, is committed to this issue. She's engaging youth and challenging them to come up with ways to motivate kids to be more active. Watch for a program called The Play Exchange, which is under way now. It will be sort of like a Dragon's Den, using CBC and promoting business plans for ideas to get kids more active.
More important, perhaps, the Minister of Health is improving Canada's already good nutrition facts labelling program. Let's hope they add the percentage daily value for sugar, which is missing from our nutrition facts table. It tells the calories and all kinds of daily percentages, but sugar, somehow, does not have a percentage. It tells you how many grams, but that gets a little complicated to figure out. It's nice to know that will move forward.
I am also pleased that Bal Gosal, Minister of State for Sport, is supportive of the program. I am sure we can count on him to line up support from our Olympic athletes, who are here today in Parliament celebrating their great successes at Sochi. Olympic athletes have a role to play in motivating young people. We support our athletes well and I think it's only reasonable that we ask them to give back by visiting schools and generating excitement around getting busy.
That is all I have to say today. I would be pleased to take any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you. I will open the floor to questions
Senator Eggleton: Congratulations. This is a very worthwhile endeavour.
I remember back in my days as Mayor of Toronto when we did ParticipACTION. I used to be able to get out on the square with business people on a weekday. You are suggesting a Saturday. Why is a Saturday better than a weekday?
Senator Raine: This bill is designed to work with municipalities and most people are off work in their communities on the weekend; so it makes sense to do it on a Saturday. The week leading up to it is National Parks Week; so a lot of things are happening at that time of year. We chose that date because it comes at the end of the spring programming in most municipal recreation departments, just before the summer programming takes off. There is a good chance to promote programs at that time. It also gives you a good opportunity, because you are coming to the end of the school year, to promote exercise activities for kids during the summer, even things like camps, which are also important for socializing and learning active play.
We didn't want it to be a holiday. We didn't want it to be like a bank holiday, so that is why we picked a Saturday.
Senator Eggleton: You mentioned schools, but will schools get on board and get organized to help out on this particular day, since Saturday is not a school day?
Senator Raine: No. This program does not focus on and is not designed around schools. It is more around municipalities and municipal facilities. Many municipalities have excellent facilities. Some municipalities, where the population is growing, have fallen behind. I've had communications from some provinces that have not taken advantage of some of our infrastructure funding. The rink program we had a few years ago was designed for recreational facilities. Some municipalities didn't take advantage of that. Many municipalities with excellent facilities are finding their program enrolment dropping, and they are welcoming this opportunity to promote their programs.
Senator Eggleton: Would there be a national program but local groups that carry it out, national graphics and programming material and stuff like that? Will it go like ParticipACTION? Will they be involved?
Senator Raine: That is an interesting subject. We have a little group of people, and I should mention them right now. Pierre Lafontaine, who is one of our national swim coaches and is now actually responsible for intercollegiate sport in Canada, and Phil Marsh, who is the regional manager for the Running Rooms, have been coming out twice a week motivating parliamentarians to get involved. We have a regular group of people that swim on a Thursday and run or walk on a Wednesday. They have become a group of advisers. There are also other people involved in how we keep this ball rolling and keep it going.
I don't think we need another organization. When I Google "fitness activities," there are a lot of programs out there all across Canada. There are provincial programs, municipal programs and national programs from everything like the Boys and Girls Club, and the YMCA and YWCA. All the sports have good programs. I don't think we need another big organization, but we probably need a little connective portal where we can have a website where municipalities that want to find out what other municipalities are doing can post their experiences and compare notes back and forth. That is kind of where we are going.
We also know that if we start to go out and get sponsors, you wind up having to serve your sponsors. I think this is an initiative that we want to encourage, but we want the municipalities to deliver it and to be free to do what works for their municipalities. If they have or want to get local sponsors, go to it, but if you have a national sponsor and they have to use their sponsor space with national logos, it is maybe not as effective, but we will work with ParticipACTION for sure.
Senator Eggleton: You mentioned the involvement of what most of us would consider elite athletes, but I trust this program will be inclusive for people with all sorts of physical and health abilities, disabilities or whatever, people who can only walk a bit or whatever. I am not including myself in that category, but there are people like that, and you want to encourage them, too, I would think.
Senator Raine: Absolutely, and some of the most inspirational athletes that we have as Canadians are our para- athletes, who have done amazing things and are such strong characters and are anxious to get involved in spreading the word that anybody can do it.
I loved the story at the Olympics with one of the curlers who shared the fact that she had tried out for many teams but didn't make it, and then she found the curling rink and found what was right for her. There are so many different kinds of activities, and you just have to get out and do it, and go and try it, and get up and move.
Senator Eaton: Senator, this is a wonderful initiative. You are absolutely right. There are 2 million diabetics in this country and so many overweight, obese people. Explain to me, though, how having a national fitness day will be effective. I could see if you were doing what Ms. Obama was doing and we get into portion control and what we feed our kids in school, changing the sports in schools, and trying to make workplace sports, but I am not quite sure I understand how a fitness day involving municipalities will be effective in the long run in doing what you're trying to do.
Senator Raine: This is only one small part of the arsenal. There is no magic bullet to solve the obesity epidemic. It will require a lifestyle change and education, which means information that is easily available at the right moment. There are a lot of right moments. As a young mother, when you get pregnant as a woman, all of a sudden you start to pay attention to your diet because you're eating for a baby. That is a time in a person's life when they are really open to learning about nutrition. We need to take advantage of all of those things.
With schools, the only time we have children captive is during the school day. We can have a curriculum in school that brings back physical literacy. Right now, we have numeracy and we have literacy that we measure. We sort of measure the school by that. How are you doing? What are your rates of literacy and numeracy? We have physical activity. We used to have physical education, but it has been downplayed. They decreased physical education and put in computers. We need computers, and I know that, but we need to bring back physical literacy.
My dream would be that, every September, every child in every classroom in every school in our country is measured and tested in a simple battery of tests that have been designed and are ready, and during the school year the children are challenged to improve their physical conditioning. I would like to bring back the Canada fitness awards, but those awards generally are rewarding kids who are already active and involved in sport. We need awards in the schools that celebrate the victories of the kids who improve. That is more important than rewarding the ones who are already good.
There are a lot of things we can do, but we're the federal government and we're not in the schools. We need the parents to be asking for this. There are school jurisdictions in our country that still have daily physical education K to 12. It can be done.
Senator Eaton: Do you think the municipalities will take the opportunity to go out and provide the education, information and incentives in their respective communities? Is that what you are hoping?
Senator Raine: I am hoping that this one day will bring together all kinds of people who have concern.
I will use Kamloops, where I come from, as an example. Last year, they had a national health and fitness day, the first one ever. I think they gave it to the junior person in the parks department. They said to him, "Do something." He came back and said, "Do I have a budget?" "No, there is no budget." "Could I have a field?" "Yes, you can have a field."
He went to all the fitness clubs in town and asked, "How would you like to come up and we will do a mass fitness class open to everybody?" They all started to promote it to their clients. The radio station got involved, and somebody donated a PA system. They had hundreds of people out there doing the grapevine and Zumba and all the different kinds of activities that these private businesses provide, as well as parks and recreation.
Around on the edges, heart and stroke had a kiosk set up, and diabetes. There was information about health. This year, it will grow. That was the first one.
Those are the kinds of things you can do. They don't cost a lot of money, but they let people connect, and it can be used as education. Cracking the education side of it will be a whole other challenge, but we have to do that, too.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you for being here, senator. I want to ask about money because, in your speech in the Senate, you said there was no funding behind this bill, but you keep talking about things that cost money. You said that national sponsors are difficult because you have to service them and so on. You have talked about education curriculum, testing the kids and a number of things in your responses to Senator Eaton. How will this be paid for? It is a load on the school boards and costs to municipalities.
Senator Raine: National health and fitness day doesn't need to cost a lot of money. Certainly there won't be any funding coming from the federal government. It is possible that the British Columbia government, who has also proclaimed the first Saturday in June as B.C. Health and Fitness Day, might provide some grants to municipalities, but they don't have to. There doesn't have to be a lot of money at the municipal level to make this thing fly. There are all kinds of stakeholders that are willing to come out with their volunteers to put up their information and to help make it fly.
Senator Nancy Ruth, I know that there is a lot of research being done through the Canadian government. I think $200 million was spent last year on researching obesity and $2 million went to ParticipACTION to promote healthy living. I would be willing to bet that the costs of decreased health care if we can do more to promote healthy living will really make it pay.
Those of you who have read about what fitness does to you in terms of your learning capacity will understand that you learn better when you're healthy and fit. We need to invest in that for the outcomes that we want. Does that make sense?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, it's sort of around and around and around and not too specific; but I'll take it.
The Chair: Senator Raine, you've explained it very well in the sense that it's a day that can be identified through the programs that we have through the federal government, passing a bill in this way.
You have correctly noted that you have been working hard on it for some while and that the municipalities are the driving force in activities in most communities, certainly in the rural parts of this country. I know from personal experience in Nova Scotia that municipalities have some degree of organization, but are heavily involved with volunteers to work in numerous kinds of programs. We know that this time of year there are all kinds of events organized without any cost. They can involve everything from major runs around large parts of provinces to activities within the municipalities.
I've heard your comments in the past, and the idea of establishing a day in this way that gives recognition is a reference point for all of those communities. I applaud you and the energy you have put into bringing this bill forward to fruition.
I will go now to clause-by-clause consideration. We would welcome you to stay for that if you wish.
We are now moving to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-211, An Act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The bill is carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to a report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Congratulations, Senator Raine.
We are now dealing with Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act. We have tonight, by video conference, from the Government of the Northwest Territories, Peter Vician, Deputy Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. Mr. Vician, I invite you now to make a presentation to the committee.
Peter Vician, Deputy Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Government of the Northwest Territories: Good afternoon and thank you, senator. I hope our connection is working well at this point. Please interrupt if I am somehow cut off.
Thank you to your committee for this opportunity to make a presentation. As indicated, I am Peter Vician, Deputy Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment with the Government of the Northwest Territories. Up until just recently, I have been responsible for the Government of the Northwest Territories' oversight and coordination of the national park development agenda and our relationship with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Parks Canada and Natural Resources Canada.
I want to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to present some brief remarks of views of the Government of the Northwest Territories on Bill S-5, the Nááts'ihch'oh national park reserve act. We are pleased that this legislation has advanced to this stage for consideration by the Senate committee.
The establishment of national parks in Canada's northern territories is guided by Canada's Mineral and Energy Resource Assessment policy and its process, the MERA. The MERA process provides an opportunity for extensive identification, mapping and evaluation of mineral and energy resources within the proposed park area. These studies are carried out by the Geological Survey of Canada. The assessments ensure that decisions are made based on scientific information and opportunities that have been evaluated prior to a decision regarding park establishment.
Since 2005, work has been ongoing to establish this proposed park through the MERA process. We're happy with the collaborative efforts of Natural Resources Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and Parks Canada throughout this process. Our government supports these efforts to protect an important conservation and ecological value area in the headwaters of the South Nahanni River, while planning for the future growth of the Northwest Territories. We would like to thank Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Parks Canada for their involvement throughout this process.
The Government of the Northwest Territories supports the establishment of the proposed park as set out in this legislation. As proposed, Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve will balance protection of important conservation values with future economic opportunities.
We are happy with the new tourism opportunities that will arise in the Sahtu region from the establishment of this national park reserve. The allowance for road access to pre-existing mineral deposits highlights the balanced approach to park establishment. We value the work of forward-thinking governments to protect the environment while still supporting economic development.
The Government of the Northwest Territories worked with Parks Canada and our federal colleagues throughout the development of this legislation and particularly on the establishment of a boundary and supports the bill before you today. We think it is a step forward for both land conservation and tourism opportunities. Throughout the process, Aboriginal groups such as the Sahtu Dene and Metis of the Tulita District have been consulted about the establishment of the Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve. An impact and benefit plan was signed in March 2012 by the Government of Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Metis of the Tulita District for the establishment of Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve to ensure the provision of lasting economic, cultural and social benefits to the people of the Northwest Territories.
We support the federal government's efforts in the development of this legislation and look forward to the support of this committee and the enactment of this legislation.
With that senators, I will be very pleased to answer any questions you may have and to convey any other information that could assist your committee's review of this bill.
The Chair: Thank you. I will open the committee to questions from senators.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you, Mr. Vician, for your comments. When this bill first came forward, I thought, "This is wonderful — a national park — there can't be anything wrong with this." But then I read notes from our Library of Parliament researchers. I would like to read one paragraph:
In early 2010, public consultations were held with respect to establishing the park reserve, particularly with respect to the three boundary options. In the consultation, 70 per cent of participants supported protection of the entire South Nahanni River watershed; however, this was not one of the options put forward. Only 65 of the 1,603 total participants expressed a preference for one of the options. Of these participants, sixty supported option 1, three supported option 2, and two supported option 3.
Which one did the government pick? Option 3, with only two people out of 1,600 supporting it. What has happened here? It doesn't sound like many people in the area — and I take it that includes the Sahtu Dene and Metis — would seem to support this.
Mr. Vician: Thank you for your question, senator. It's an important part of the process that consultations occurred on proposed boundary options. Those consultations are led by Parks Canada as the federal agency, who reports back to the various parties on the MERA process. Throughout that process, many interest groups are asked for input on the proposed boundaries. At that point, the feedback from those interest groups is considered in the final determination of a boundary recommendation to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
The MERA process is under the chairmanship of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. The GNWT participated by input into that boundary recommendation. From the numbers you reference here, we were a contributor to that discussion and had provided input with regard to the three options. As well, we looked at the consideration of other parties' input with regard to the options, such as the Sahtu Dene and Metis, and the interests representative of the Northwest Territories, such as the tourism industry and the mineral industry.
I can't speak specifically to the numbers you reference, but throughout this process we've identified the need for a balance with regard to the areas in the park that provide tourism opportunity, conservation of lands that are very important and, of course, the issue with regard to existing rights and leases that exist in the park study area that relate to mineral development. Our government was a full participant in the discussions with the federal government and believes that the proposed boundary is the correct boundary; and that belief is shared by the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
Senator Eggleton: When you have a consultation process with 1,600 participants, which sounds like a lot for that area, and only two seemed to like this option, you have to wonder what they think is wrong with it. I was hoping you could enlighten us as to what you thought you heard about the subject.
In terms of the mining aspect, I'm looking at a map showing only one constructed road. Is more than one to be constructed? I thought two roads were approved.
Mr. Vician: The existing road that serves the Howards Pass region is something for development in the future. There is existing road access from the tungsten mine area north, but the potential Howards Pass development, which bridges across Yukon and Northwest Territories, is currently an area of exploration and great potential with regard to mine development. This bill provides for the access to that area, not unlike what was done recently with the Nahanni National Park Reserve development where provision was made for existing mine development, Canadian Zinc at Prairie Creek Mine, to provide access to the national park.
The intent is to limit that development where it impacts the park to road access only, the purpose being that we want to have potential access to that development when it reaches production level.
Senator Eggleton: How are these roads constructed? How much traffic volume would they have?
Mr. Vician: I guess the best example would be what's being considered for the Nahanni National Park Reserve just south with regard to Canadian Zinc's proposal. There is an application before the Mackenzie Valley Review Board to review that.
In essence when you're dealing with commodities of this nature, you're dealing with industrial traffic not of a large volume — truck traffic moving concentrate from the mine site potentially to smelter locations elsewhere. Volumes are light and often handled during different times of the year. The development of the road often is based on whether the proponent wishes to run it on a seasonal basis, say winter only, or to avoid some of the more difficult periods of time in these mountainous regions with freeze and thaw periods. Overall, it will have a minimal traffic load.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Because the impact benefit agreement wasn't part of the bill, we didn't get any notes on it, so I want to ask a few questions about it.
How will it work for Aboriginal peoples and, in particular, is there a gender component to the hiring provisions in it?
Mr. Vician: As a representative of the Government of the Northwest Territories, we are not privy to all the details of the access and benefit agreement. That agreement is between Parks Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
Let me share the perspectives of the Government of the Northwest Territories. This is an essential component of the park development. In the development of the Nahanni National Park Reserve and our four other national parks in the Northwest Territories, the relationship with the Aboriginal communities and the economic spinoff in jobs and other benefits that accrue to the local Aboriginal communities is an essential part of the puzzle moving forward. In the case of gender and specifics associated with the agreement, I don't have that detail. I would ask that you perhaps direct that question to Parks Canada, who would have that detail.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I will be happy to do that. Would you say the Government of the Northwest Territories would encourage the equal employment of women?
Mr. Vician: Absolutely, senator. It is an essential component. I could refer you to negotiated agreements with all the developers over the past decade regarding mine development in the Northwest Territories. Gender participation and education, particularly women in the mining sector, as an example, has been a front-and-centre objective of the Government of the Northwest Territories. I refer you to our agreements with various proponents of the territory that have that explicit condition. We see that as an important part of the relationship with industry and with our Aboriginal communities. In fact, I would say that we are leading the way in many of these areas in the tourism and industrial development sectors.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That's encouraging to hear. Could you give me an example of what you mean by it? Are you saying there should be a minimum of 40-60 or are you encouraging 50-50? What do the words mean?
Mr. Vician: Senator, the words mean, first, to improve on multiple sectors where we see a lack of representation. Our first area of representativeness in the mining sector is Aboriginal representation in the workforce and in the activity of the operation of that development.
On the gender side, we have avoided targets, but we continue to push for improvement year by year. We have seen remarkable improvements in the Northwest Territories, particularly in the mining sector, where women in the workforce have provided a large part of the operations of the mine.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Okay. You know what? Affirmative action doesn't necessarily mean targets, but you will have a path over the last decade of what increases this has meant and shown within the mining industry. It would be that kind of thing that I would like an example of. You seem reluctant to give it, so I will move on to another question.
I don't know whether you can answer this — it may be for Parks Canada — but it is about the sacred lands within the area of the park. Is the reserve fully open to visitors, or are there particular measures that respect the nature of these lands, particularly the sacred lands?
Mr. Vician: The minister responsible for Parks Canada will have the ability to protect lands within the national park that are considered sacred and off limits to any type of activity. Of course, that is within the regulatory power of the federal minister responsible. There are areas that are traditional, and those areas would be open to traditional pursuits by the Aboriginal peoples of that area. Depending on the nature of that traditional area and sacred area, it would be developed accordingly or managed accordingly.
Senator Nancy Ruth: So those areas that are sort of reserved now may be limited at this time to visitation by people visiting the park? Some limitations exist now. It is in the minister's discretion to remove or add more land to those restricted areas, but there are some now? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Vician: As of today, the lands have been vested as part of the withdrawal for the national park. Those lands currently are Crown lands and currently devolved and protected for the purpose of identifying the park.
When this legislation comes into being, the minister responsible for national parks will have the authority to manage those lands under the legislation, the National Parks Act. Depending on the nature of the specific lands, it could provide additional protection, if necessary.
Again, none of this, to my knowledge, would preclude the traditional and aboriginal pursuits of the region, so the individuals of that region would not be restricted from their traditional ways.
Senator Seidman: It is my understanding that this bill provides for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to apply, adapted as necessary, when it comes to land-use permits and water licences. Might you elaborate some of the details to help us understand what exactly that will mean?
Mr. Vician: The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act remains a statute of the federal government. That act was not part of the devolution process. There are significant co-management elements under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. There are also responsible ministers identified pursuant to that act and, in some cases, those responsible ministers include the ministers of the Government of the Northwest Territories.
The act makes explicit reference to those provisions because, no matter what activity takes place in the national park, the act makes sure that those statutory requirements and associated regulations will still apply, so water licence and land-use permit activities will still be following through the process of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. In that case, you may be familiar with the Mackenzie Valley board structure and environmental review panel structure. If any activities are advanced as a result within the national park, say the development of some kind of facility that is associated with the park or the issue of the road, all of those conditions, pursuant to that act, will apply and require the minister's or multiple ministers' approval through that statute.
Senator Seidman: Is there some provision for penalties if there is contravention of the agreements regarding land-use permits and water licences?
Mr. Vician: The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act has strict requirements associated with the administration of any land-use permits or water licences. I am not personally familiar with the statute's penalty provisions, but there are explicit enforcement conditions. Land-use inspectors and water inspectors have great powers under the statute, along with the minister, to enforce any of the terms and conditions that would be associated with any type of development.
Again, in the context of this national park proposal, outside of this road potential, there is no anticipated development that will happen. It protects those lands for conservation and ecological purposes, and obviously would hope to see some visitation associated with that from the tourism perspective.
Senator Seidman: It is clear that the land-use permits and the water licences are with particular reference to the mining access roads, but you are saying that the newly created board and the minister oversee this particular aspect?
Mr. Vician: In this case, the minister of national parks will not be the minister under MVRMA. That minister is the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. The boards exist and have existed and are part and parcel of the comprehensive claim process in the Northwest Territories. Those boards existed for many years and will continue to oversee any of these applications.
Senator Seth: Thank you for your presentation. I have a big concern here with these two mining roads that will be allowed to exist in the park. Can you give me some idea of what measures have been taken to make sure that the park is not contaminated from the chemicals used to maintain these roads?
Mr. Vician: At this point in time, we are not dealing with active road development. The provisions are included within the statute to provide for that development. The intent is that those roads provide access to mining properties that are not within the park proper. Those are areas, as we have indicated, such as the Howards Pass area. In the event of those roads advancing and being utilized, they would then be under the purview of the MVRMA, Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, under its regulatory provisions. In this case, you would see essentially the movement of commodity goods — tungsten, for example, and lead zinc — if the properties proceed. There are really no concerns with regard to contamination. They don't apply. There is no contamination at this point in time of any sort, and it is not foreseeable in any case under any future development.
Senator Chaput: This act applies to reserves in the same way it applies to parks, because the reserves will now be national park reserves. It provides for four exceptions in order to protect some of the rights of the reserves. What about water, sir? In the act, it talks about water licences that the minister can issue for the purpose of mining access. Do those reserves already have access to water? How will it affect this access when the minister provides access to the mining departments?
Mr. Vician: The bill provides for the explicit ability of the minister, under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to issue a right to water use as it is needed. At this point, that could be needed, but isn't a requirement today.
During the process of a development application, a proponent would ask for water licence authority under the Northwest Territories Waters Act or the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act. That would then proceed. This would provide that right, but it is not a matter of consideration today. This is strictly part of the right that would exist after the national park reserve is established.
Senator Chaput: Couldn't it be problematic? Eventually, could access to water be a problem?
Mr. Vician: It depends on the nature of the proponent's application. If a proponent wanted to apply for water use, it would have to go through a rigorous application review and be assessed like any other water use in the NWT where conditions of habitat protection of water capacity, seasonality of that water use and the quantum overall are significant. We have a thorough process in the Northwest Territories before any licence could ever be issued in accordance with water licence requirements. In any case, it would be a fulsome hearing and review. At this point, nothing has been identified that would concern us.
Senator Patterson: I would like to welcome Mr. Vician, whom I have known for a long time. I thank him for being here today.
In the North, we pride ourselves on our good relations with our Aboriginal residents. I would like to ask Mr. Vician if he could talk about, first, the Government of the Northwest Territories and its relations with Aboriginal organizations in the context of the protected area strategy and how Aboriginal people are involved with the protected area strategy, which was pivotal in the government's approval of this park. Second, in the devolution agreement, how are Aboriginal people involved in the devolution of land and resources management to the Government of the Northwest Territories and do they have a stake in responsible mineral development?
Mr. Vician: Good afternoon. It is good to receive your question and I appreciate this.
The Government of the Northwest Territories prides itself on a very close relationship with its Aboriginal government partners. Of course, for decades we have been striving for the completion of comprehensive claims to represent the governance authority of our Aboriginal peoples of the Northwest Territories. Those have been accomplished year after year, and we pride ourselves again in accomplishing many of them with the Government of Canada; but there are more to go. The protected area element of the preservation of lands for the purpose of traditional Aboriginal pursuits for traditional activity and the control of those lands by Aboriginal peoples has been front and centre.
This area falls within the comprehensive claim with the Sahtu Dene and Metis, which accomplished a comprehensive claim to administer in a co-management environment. It is a thorough way of handling land and water issues in that region. The Sahtu peoples are front and centre in the consideration of any government policy or decision with regard to areas of our responsibility. Protection of the South Nahanni watershed has always been a determinant area of protection for the government for ecological reasons as well as the protection of the habitat and wildlife. This is a beautiful region of our country that demands we protect it for the future.
In the context of devolution, which is a significant accomplishment of this country, the Northwest Territories and the Aboriginal peoples of the territories, we have accomplished great success in partnership with Aboriginal peoples to share in the administration and responsibilities of the Northwest Territories as a whole. That includes decision-making on land management, how water will be managed and how any development will proceed.
The devolution agreement of April 1, 2014, which is implemented effectively today, is guided by a resource management council of Aboriginal peoples that are signatories to that agreement, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government, where there are federal interests. We are very proud of having accomplished that major step in the future of the territory. The people of the territory, particularly Aboriginal governments of the territory, stand side-by-side with the territorial government in that future administration.
Development is a big issue. Within the devolution agreement is the sharing not only of decision-making but also any benefits that arise from development in the area. In this case, we are not resource proposing development within the park proper, but adjacent lands outside the national park may use a road through this park and would be part and parcel of a sharing principle. That includes royalty sharing, but more importantly includes the decision-making with regard to how a project would proceed and, perhaps, impact in the area of land or water.
Overall, the most important message this afternoon is that this proposal meets the objectives of the Government of the Northwest Territories and has been arrived at in the context of that relationship with the Sahtu Dene and Metis and other players in the Northwest Territories as well.
Senator Patterson: If I understand you correctly, the Aboriginal people of the region will have a strong voice in whether any mineral development proceeds in this area of the park or the area adjacent to the park. They will also have a share in the resource revenues should such mineral developments proceed.
It has been observed that the park reserve does not include the whole watershed as some areas have been carved out that have potential mineral development. Would it be fair to say these areas have been carved out because if they were part of a national park, they would be off limits to development and these economic opportunities for orderly mineral development would be off limits if they were part of the national park? Do I have that right?
Mr. Vician: You have identified all matters correctly. Let me work from the back forward.
First, any development in a national park, such as mine development, would not proceed. That is totally off limits. What has been made a provision in this proposed statute is the access issue to travel through the park for the purpose of moving some of those resources from the mine sites, when and if they are developed, to the potential smelters and whatnot.
The issue of resource revenue-sharing on mine development adjacent to the national park is a fundamental element of the devolution agreement. All Aboriginal parties of the Northwest Territories that are signatories to that agreement will share in that resource revenue, particularly the royalty-sharing agreement. In the case of the devolution agreement, the Government of the Northwest Territories is responsible for the collection of those royalties, but then will remit approximately 50 per cent of those royalties to a limit, so with a cap, to share with the federal government. Of that proportion, the GNWT retains 25 per cent of that resource revenue to share with the Aboriginal parties that are signatories to the agreement.
Aboriginals groups in the Northwest Territories have a vested interest in effective, sustainable and proper development of the mining interests in the territory. It was a front-and-centre application of terms and conditions in going forward. We believe it is a very important part.
The Aboriginal peoples of this region have identified the need for economic development potential in the decades to come. It is not a matter exclusively of conservation or development; it is a balancing of all of those opportunities, which they will share in directly, both in decision making and in financial benefit as well.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Vician, northern people like to think that they can decide on the use of their land and the protection of their land without help from southern organizations. We are kind of touchy about that, I believe it is fair to say. I would like to ask you if you could identify who, in your opinion, are the primary northern stakeholders in the establishment of this park and if you could briefly comment on their position on the park. You have mentioned, of course, your government and the Sahtu Dene and Metis of Tulita, but are there other stakeholders, and what has been their stated position on this park?
Mr. Vician: There are multiple interests in the advancement of the national park in the Northwest Territories. I have referenced the Sahtu Dene Metis, whom we consider to be the primary stakeholder in the development of this region. As you are aware, the comprehensive claim of this region identified the potential for park development when it was first agreed upon. It is a critical part in terms of this process. The Government of the Northwest Territories played an active role throughout.
Particularly industrial interests represented by the Northwest Territories & Nunavut Chamber of Mines has been a very active player in the discussion, and I believe the committee has before it a submission for consideration from the chamber with regard to the process. They participated very actively throughout the process in a very constructive manner to assist in the identification of the development of the park and the boundary setting of the park. It has been collaborative and helpful in delineating that which is important to understand from a geological and future perspective for mine development. However, I can also say that they also recognize the importance of the conservation value of the region and by no means have fought against the development of a park but essentially tried to bring the best information forward.
Other groups are the tourism industry. The tourism industry has been front and centre with regard to identifying the importance of this park advancing so that tourism benefits can arise, particularly, again, to the Aboriginal and regional interests of that area. Tourism is a growing sector of our economy. It is a renewable sector. It is one that we believe will make great headway and benefit for the people of this area, as we have seen elsewhere in the country and in other areas such as the Nahanni portion of our territory.
We have other stakeholders that have advanced a stronger position with regard to the scope or the magnitude of the protection area of the South Nahanni watershed. We have had various groups in the Northwest Territories speak for a larger part and to capture more land within the park boundary, but the GNWT believes that this will provide an appropriate balance between economic future for the people of that region and the importance of preserving an important part of our ecological regions of Canada.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Mr. Vician, for taking the time to be with us today to discuss this bill. I will go back to Senator Chaput's question. She spoke about the water licence for purposes of the mining access roads, which is in proposed subsection 41.1(4). In your response to her, you said there would be a fulsome hearing regarding licences for the use of water. That would be a great idea, but the bill specifically gives that power to the minister, who may issue, amend, renew, suspend, cancel or approval the assignment of licences for the use of waters in the expansion area. It does not make any mention of having a hearing regarding the granting, suspending or canceling of licences for water. How would you work around the idea of the fulsome hearing and yet the minister having the full power?
Mr. Vician: As the provision of the bill describes, and I would have to defer to legislative counsel to get to the specifics of that, as it is not my expertise, it is our understanding, the way it's written here, that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which is a comprehensive act that applies both to thresholds and requirement for proponents to meet a certain test, plus the due process that's necessary to advance any kind of application for water use or land use, would come under that process. It is laid out explicitly under MVRMA. That could be a matter of referral to an environmental assessment or beyond, if it were necessary. The current process, which has seen many applications reviewed in the Northwest Territories, would take that consideration. That is a fundamental component of the way we do business in the territory. Some projects would advance to preliminary screening and be considered by the regulators and other parties, such as Aboriginal governments. Some would possibly be referred to further environmental scrutiny and review prior to any approval.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. Perhaps that question would be better asked of the minister or of the department in terms of why it would be in this and why it would give the sole power to the minister, but thank you for your attempt at answering that.
I am also looking at clause 5, where it speaks about existing leases, easements and licences of occupation relating to public lands. Do you have any idea of how many existing leases, easements and licences there would be currently within the park or the park boundaries as proposed by the bill?
Mr. Vician: I don't have the exact number. That would be in Parks Canada's purview, and I am not privy to that information. Sorry.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that.
Going back to Senator Eggleton's question about the Option 3 that was selected — and I have a picture in front of me of the three options — our understanding is that through public consultations, Option 3 was the least favoured of the three options, and yet that was the one that was selected. When I look at the map of Option 3, which is the proposed park reserve, it surprised me — maybe it is very common; I am not really sure — that the park is actually two distinct bodies of land with land in between separating them.
Mr. Vician: That is right.
Senator Cordy: Is there a reason for that? Is it common that a park would be divided up into two distinct land masses?
Mr. Vician: I hope you can hear me. There has been a bit of static in the line. It is my understanding that this is not a common practice in the national park structure for Canada, and I would defer to my Parks Canada colleagues to answer that from a national perspective.
However, when we looked at the boundary provision for this particular area, the reasoning that emerged for the boundary distinction here was to deal with the results of the mineral, energy and resources assessment where very high potential mineral deposits were identified during the evaluation by Natural Resources Canada. Intrusion related deposits were identified that were of great value.
For example, the Howards Pass zone to the north, which isn't part of the park, is considered one of the most significant deposits of lead zinc in the world yet to be developed. It is one of those types of areas. It is right on the boundary. We are all aware of it, and it was important to allow for that development to be allowed for in the future, which could provide significant economic benefits for the regional peoples and for the entire country.
The Chair: Mr. Vician, I would like to follow up on this last point. It was raised initially by Senator Eggleton.
I attended a briefing on this park that was open to all parties and for parliamentarians from both the House of Commons and the Senate. The numbers that Senator Eggleton referred to are in a document that dates from 2010.
It was my understanding that in the end the final proposal of the park structure had the full support of the Native communities, specifically the Dene and the Metis in the area.
Do you have any ability to comment on that? We will hear from Parks Canada tomorrow, but do you have any particular information on that aspect, that is, the final definition of the park boundary as opposed to the various stages of public consultation?
Mr. Vician: Thank you, senator. That is our — (inaudible) —Aboriginal leadership of that area specifically on that topic, but our understanding is, yes, the support exists for the proposed boundary that we are presenting support to you today.
The Chair: In that briefing there was also discussion on the shape of the park and the different pieces and, if I recall correctly, the particular additional pieces with the areas excluded was at the request of the Dene and Metis in that area with regard to two particular issues overall. One was the ability to access the mining areas on the one hand, and on the other to preserve parts of the territory outside the main body that they wish to have protected. Did I recall that correctly, or can you comment?
Mr. Vician: Yes, you did, senator. That is my understanding. The access issue was front and centre, a major component of that dialogue, as well as a zone to the north, which is the O'Grady Lake boundary on the northern section of the park where the decision was made to provide both Parks Canada access to the park from the northern region as a headwater location to access the park, but as well to provide public lands that would also be available for tourism development that the people of that region have an interest in pursuing in the future.
The Chair: Thank you. It was also my understanding that there was considerable satisfaction of the peoples in the area of this park with regard to the process that ultimately led to the final conclusion, in that it is the first park created under the new approach of Parks Canada that takes into consideration the existing uses of the park, in this case by Native peoples in particular. It was my understanding that they were particularly concerned about maintaining access to some mining rights within the park, because those mining agreements that they signed entail an educational component which they considered to be very important to their ongoing educational development with regard to job opportunities and long-term development. Senator Sibbeston referred to this general principle in his speech before the Senate last week.
Can you confirm that the ability to maintain access to the park by the existing users — which in this case is essentially the Native groups, the Metis and the Dene — was considered to be an important breakthrough in the establishment of parks? I realize you are not a national parks person, but I am sure this must have been an aspect that was considered up there. If you have any comment at all, I would welcome it.
Mr. Vician: Yes, we have clearly seen a change in terms of how Parks Canada works with the Aboriginal governments of this territory and respects their approach and views with regard to their future economic opportunities.
It is probably best to make reference to the Nahanni National Park Reserve expansion that occurred over the last few years, and the consideration for the activity of a park, about the mine property within the park — it is outside of the park but within the general park purview — that provides for a significant economic future for the region, for the Aboriginal peoples who have agreements with the mines, for economic purposes, contractual set-off, employment and training. Those are very important. The same applies in the context of this proposed national park development.
The Sahtu Dene and Metis are currently active with the mine interests. For example, there is the Howard Pass development, which is on the border but is more active on the Yukon side. The people of that region are active right now with that development for both job and contract purposes. I understand there are discussions under way right now with regard to their economic arms, Aboriginal arms, which are working on the road development for the future. It is an important piece of the puzzle and fully supported by the government of the Northwest Territories.
Senator Eggleton: There is an organization called the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. I think they are appearing here tomorrow. I don't know if that's one of Senator Patterson's southern groups, but I want to quote a couple of things. I would like your comment, and I would subsequently like Senator Patterson's, as well.
They first of all seemed rather positive about things, but said that they were concerned that the park boundary announced by the Prime Minister falls far short of what is needed to protect the ecological integrity of the world- renowned Nahanni watershed. They go on to say that the final decision, announced by the Prime Minister, protects less of the headwaters area. They clearly disregarded the public establishment process. That's the reference to the 1,600 people and only 2 supporting this, as well as scientific evidence of what's needed to fully protect the ecological integrity of the area. They're saying the entire watershed area will be compromised if it doesn't fully protect the remaining part of the watershed.
It talks about the habitat of these sensitive species. They specifically are talking about woodland caribou, Dall's sheep and grizzly bears. Can you comment on their assessment of the situation and whether you agree with it or not?
Mr. Vician: Senator, I will let the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society speak with regard to their position.
The Government of the Northwest Territories believes this boundary is significant in protecting the habitat, the species of that region and the South Nahanni watershed; we believe the boundary isn't the only element of that protection.
It's not necessary to establish a national park to protect an ecosystem to ensure protection of the habitat and wildlife. In fact, in the Northwest Territories we have a very rigorous system of oversight and practice with regard to protection of the environment.
I've made reference already to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the mechanisms that fall under that regime; but probably more important is the relationship we have with our Aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories to ensure that prior to any form of development that there be a thorough understanding of the potential of that development and what impacts could occur; and furthermore that that rigorous licensing and permitting process be in place, and that good oversight implemented so none of these very sensitive areas are impacted.
The boreal caribou you made reference to is an important species for this region, traditionally and ecologically. We believe that the balancing act of establishing the boundary and, in the same parallel track, ensuring any development is under strict control and decision-making by the people of this region is part and parcel of protecting the environment of this area. The Government of the Northwest Territories is confident it will do so for decades to come in this area.
The Chair: Senator Patterson, would you like to add something, as has been requested?
Senator Patterson: Maybe for the benefit of the committee, I will. With respect to Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and Senator Eggleton properly raising the concern, I think it's fair to say that CPAWS' concern is about the threat of mineral resource development and its possible impact on the watershed and the ecology of the region.
Mr. Vician, further to what you just said, for the benefit of the committee, could you describe the process that would have to be undertaken to do a review if there were a proposal to activate the mineral deposit that has road access through the park? What process would be undertaken? What would be the involvement of the people of the region and the Aboriginal hunters and users of that land? Could you describe that process, please?
Mr. Vician: I indicated previously some elements of that process; so I'll repeat them if I may. Under the comprehensive claim of that area, there is full integration of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It's a very comprehensive piece of legislation that will apply to any form of land use, permitting, water licence and requirement associated with any form of development. In your example, mining development would come under extreme scrutiny with regard to any advancement or licensing of a project.
Before a project of that nature reaches the point of an application, it would require considerable dialogue and discussion with the Aboriginal peoples of the area. A proponent that wanted to advance a project would spend years in dialogue with the peoples to ensure that they had a full understanding of the proposal, as well as the kind of consideration and relationship that would need to occur over time.
At some point, the proponent would then apply for the appropriate permits and licences, whether land use, water licence or any form that would apply, after developing a comprehensive scope and detailed proposal.
That application would come under the preliminary screening provisions of the MVRMA. Aboriginal governments are members by law of that organization. The land and water board, in this case the Sahtu land and water board, has representation by the Aboriginal governments on that board, as per their appointment. They would take a careful look at the preliminary screening stage to determine if it's a significant project and if it will have a negative impact. The decision is made as to whether that project requires further review. I can't imagine any project of this description that wouldn't require an environmental assessment and panel review.
It's a comprehensive process. The participants are the Aboriginal peoples of the region, who have full rights to participate and be involved. At some point, the MVRMA environmental review would take place and if the project was capable of proceeding without a negative impact that couldn't be mitigated, it would apply strict terms and conditions to any licensing, which territorial government regulators, federal regulators, or any other regulators would have to apply.
Our experience to date with modern mining, particularly the diamond mining sector, has demonstrated a thorough process behind every application and project that has advanced. A regular review process could be five, six or seven years, if they are significant licences.
We can confidently say today that we believe we have a system that is second to none when it comes to thorough review and decision-making with all the information before anything proceeds.
It's a complex discussion, talking about project development, but coming back to Nááts'ihch'oh, the objective is to protect the park, its ecosystem, its watershed, the species and so on. Even with the proposed boundary, any adjacent development would be subject to that thorough review in the context of maintaining and preserving the park.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vician, for appearing with us today. I think I can speak for colleagues in thanking you particularly for the clarity and organization of your responses. They've been extremely helpful to us in understanding these issues. I wish we could have such clarity universally in responses to very important issues.
I also acknowledge the success of our respective IT operators in ultimately establishing this contact. I believe we have circumnavigated the country to some degree to make this work. With only a couple of breakups, it has worked very well.
On behalf of the committee, I thank you very much for your testimony before us today. We wish you well with continued success in the North.
I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)