Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 16 - Evidence - June 5, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 5, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:29 a.m. to continue its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, an Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada).
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I'm Kelvin Ogilvie, senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I would ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton from Toronto.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Toronto.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I am Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto and deputy chair of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I want to remind us that we are dealing today with Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada).
I'm pleased to welcome, from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Alison Woodley, National Director, Parks Program. I'm going to invite Ms. Woodley to make a presentation to us, and following that I will open up the floor to questions.
Alison Woodley, National Director, Parks Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to first thank all members of the committee for inviting us to participate in these hearings today and to present our thoughts on Bill S-5.
[Translation]
I am the National Director of the Parks Program for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, or CPAWS. I would like to thank members of the committee for inviting us to participate in these hearings by presenting our thoughts on Bill S-5.
[English]
CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, is Canada's voice for parks and public wilderness protection. For over 50 years we've played a key role in the establishment of Canada's magnificent parks and protected areas. We have 13 regional chapters, including one in the Northwest Territories, as well as a national office here in Ottawa. We have over 65,000 active supporters across the country. Protecting the South Nahanni Watershed has been an important goal of our organization for over 45 years. We've been working on efforts to protect this area.
I'd like to start with a brief comment on the lead time provided for these committee hearings. Nááts'ihch'oh, as you know, is located in the traditional territory of the Sahtu Dene and Metis of Tulita and Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories and will be created pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement.
I contacted Sahtu representatives earlier this week to let them know I had been invited to appear before the committee and I learned that they too had been invited on fairly short notice. While I do not and cannot in any way speak for the Sahtu, I think it's worthwhile highlighting that residents of the remote northern communities require much more lead time in order to be able to travel to, prepare for and participate in these kinds of meetings. I wanted to start by recommending that the committee ensure there has been adequate opportunity for the Sahtu Dene and Metis, whose rights and interests are critical to this national park and integrate into this national park, to participate in the hearings if they choose to do so and that it not be hampered by insufficient lead time. I just wanted to start with that point.
CPAWS has been working to protect the incredible natural and cultural values of the South Nahanni Watershed for over 40 years, beginning with the national campaign in the early 1970s to create the original Nahanni National Park Reserve, which was shortly thereafter designated as one of the world's first World Heritage Sites. In 2009, after working closely with the Dehcho First Nations and Parks Canada for almost a decade, CPAWS was pleased to celebrate the six-fold expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve to better protect the wildlife, water, wilderness and cultural values of the Nahanni. While the final boundary wasn't a perfect win for conservation, it reflected the scientific evidence of what was needed for conservation and the public input while respecting third-party mineral rights in the area. It was a reasonable compromise and a significant conservation achievement.
CPAWS has long been supportive of the efforts of the Sahtu Dene and Metis and Parks Canada to create a national park reserve to protect the Nááts'ihch'oh, which is the headwaters of the South Nahanni River Watershed. This would be, we hoped, the final step required to ensure the South Nahanni Watershed was protected for all time.
Unfortunately, I have to comment today that the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area. Bill S-5 falls far short of being a significant conservation achievement.
Yet, throughout most of the multi-year park establishment process, it appeared things were on track for a park boundary that would protect the area's natural values while respecting third-party mineral rights, very similar to what happened in the Nahanni National Park expansion. It was only at the very end of this process that the boundary was suddenly and fundamentally changed with no public input.
Five minutes isn't very long to speak to this, but I have included documents in your packages that were used in the 2010 public consultations that describe three boundary options being considered. The report on those public consultations demonstrates overwhelming public support for the strongest conservation option.
After the public consultations were completed, new boundary proposals were developed based on conservation science and public input while respecting third-party mineral rights. Things were on track for another compromise that would be a significant conservation achievement similar to the Nahanni. In 2012, the boundary proposal suddenly changed to Option 3 of the public consultations, which was described in the government's own public consultation documents as "minimal protection to important conservation values." This is what you see in Bill S-5 with one minor tweak.
We firmly believe this is a lost opportunity for conservation and for Canada to demonstrate true conservation leadership.
Protecting Nááts'ihch'oh is critically important, a huge step, and we absolutely support the protection of Nááts'ihch'oh through a national park reserve.
However, rather than this being the final step in protecting the South Nahanni Watershed and that greater ecosystem, much more work will be needed to effectively protect Nááts'ihch'oh and the South Nahanni Watershed and its wildlife. CPAWS is committed to continuing this work with the Sahtu Dene and Metis of Tulita and Norman Wells to ensure that effective conservation measures are put in place to fill these gaps and that the significant natural and cultural values of the area are protected for benefit of current and future generations of the Sahtu across Canada and around the world. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I will now open the floor up to my colleagues.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you for your presentation. You said you talked to representatives of the Sahtu Dene and Metis about this meeting. They knew about the meeting but felt there wasn't enough time for them to be able to come down here, or if they can do a video conference at all. Did they suggest they had some concerns about the bill? I understood they signed off on the bill.
Ms. Woodley: I can't speak in any way for the Sahtu. I let them know that I was presenting. I learned the timelines were very short, and that's challenging. There's not even a flight out every day from Tulita. I'm suggesting it's important that the committee ensure that the reason for the non-participation is not due to the short lead time, but that the full choice is there to participate or not. That's all I wanted to say. I'm in no way suggesting that I can speak for them.
Senator Eggleton: I understand. I'm just trying to understand what they told you. Did they tell you they would like to come? Did they indicate how much time it would take them to —
Ms. Woodley: I have no response.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. Let me ask you about the public consultation process that you mentioned. You said most people wanted Option 1 but ended up with Option 3, the least protective of the options. Were you or your organization at some of these meetings?
Ms. Woodley: Absolutely.
Senator Eggleton: You were. The information I received from our researchers was that there were about 1,600 participants in total — I suppose that's over several meetings — and that 70 per cent of the participants supported protection of the entire South Nahanni River Watershed. But when it came down to selecting options, only 65 per cent got into that discussion or participation, of which 60 supported Option 1, three supported Option 2 and only two supported Option 3. Is that your recollection of it? Can you explain how those meetings unfolded and how those numbers came about?
Ms. Woodley: A thorough report from the public consultations was done as a consultant report for Parks Canada, and it's included in the package. The details are there. The consultation was quite thorough. Parks Canada held many meetings in local communities in Yellowknife and in the Yukon and several meetings in Southern Canada, and they also had an online consultation process where Canadians were able to provide their input by email or by letter.
Overall, the percentage of public support for Option 3 was, according to our tally, 3 per cent. It's a bit difficult because people say this option or that option or their own option or whatever, but it looks like 3 per cent were supportive of Option 3. That is a very low number. The overwhelming majority of people were supportive of Option 1 or better. Protecting the full Nahanni watershed is more than Option 1, so the vast majority of people overall supported more than that.
There's a really interesting narrative community by community in the report on the key points they heard in each of these meetings and what the overall results were by percentage, because percentage doesn't tell everything.
Senator Eggleton: Your organization may well be considered by some to be southern. Do you have people that live up there, people that are part of your organization and people that have been responsible for the position you take today? I don't know whether you yourself are, but that's not material.
Ms. Woodley: I've done lots of work in the North and have spent time in the North, but I'm not a northerner.
Senator Eggleton: People who are resident of the North have contributed to this decision. This is not just a southern organization saying, "This is what the North needs."
Ms. Woodley: We have 13 chapters across the country, and one of the strengths of CPAWS is that we reflect the structure of Canada. Each of our chapters across the country reports to boards of directors in those regions. They really are organizations based in the regions who have the relationships and the connections and work on the ground with local communities. We have had a chapter in the Northwest Territories since the late 1990s, and they are partners in the Protected Areas Strategy. They've been heavily engaged in all the protected areas work that has happened since, and they report to a northern board of directors. Yes, we have staff on the ground.
Senator Eggleton: Would you describe Option 1 as an ideal scenario, or is it just a better protection of the watershed and the wildlife than the other options?
Ms. Woodley: Well, at the time that the three options came out, we actually highlighted that Option 1 still had some problems. There's a doughnut hole in the middle of it that is very important wildlife habitat for Dall's sheep, woodland caribou and grizzly bears.
Senator Eggleton: Is that where the mining is?
Ms. Woodley: There are some claims there. There are third-party interests there. We suggested that closing up that hole would be a big improvement. It is a compromise, but it's a compromise that respects third-party interests and mineral interests, and it's a much better compromise for conservation than Option 3 is, which leaves out very critical areas for wildlife as well as one of the main tributaries.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much.
Senator Patterson: Welcome to the committee. I don't want to get too involved with the consultation process because I'm sure you would agree, and I think the Parks Canada website said, this is not a vote.
Ms. Woodley: Absolutely.
Senator Patterson: This was not determinative. The decision about the park boundary was ultimately under the authority of the minister.
I do think it is important that we look at the input of the residents of the region and the North, particularly the Sahtu Dene and Metis whose traditional lands these were, and they have depended on these lands for sustenance and spiritual meaning for millennia.
I know that CPAWS had a website that was established around the time of these consultations, and I wouldn't be surprised if your website encouraged people to support your preferred option for the boundaries. In that connection, I wanted to ask you, of the 1,600 people who gave responses to Parks Canada, do you know where these responses came from, particularly how many came from the North? Frankly, as a northern resident, I think it's fair to say most northern residents value the opinions of the people who live in the region even more, with all respect, than well- intentioned, urban southern residents who care about this stuff, too. I respect that too. Of the 1600, do you have an idea where they came from?
Ms. Woodley: I don't have a breakdown off the top of my head. It was a few years now. But most of those, over 1,000, would probably be southerners. That's why the value of the public consultation report is so important, because it actually goes through — which is in the packages. There's a narrative of what Parks Canada heard in each of the northern communities and what those priorities are. It's not a numerical vote. It's a narrative of what they heard. It is very strongly in support. They heard strong support for strong conservation measures in the North in those areas, and that's northerners. I wasn't at every one of those meetings, obviously, but the narrative is quite clear, and it's in the document. I would encourage you to read that because it's quite compelling.
Senator Patterson: There were only 65 of the 1,600 that expressed a particular opinion on the three boundary options.
Ms. Woodley: Specifically to choose one of the three?
Senator Patterson: That's what I meant.
Ms. Woodley: Most said they wanted at least that. They wanted the whole watershed protected.
Senator Patterson: Only 65 commented on Option 1, 2 or 3?
Ms. Woodley: That may be, but other ones would have given a more general response, saying they would like to see the whole watershed protected. It was a conservation-focused support.
Senator Patterson: Turning from that question, I'm curious. You've said strong words here: "The park boundary will not achieve the conservation goal of CPAWS." You've expressed your disappointment about that in other terms. Do you not put value on what I would describe as the rigorous regulatory regime that is in place and has been in place governing resource development in the entire Northwest Territories and Mackenzie Valley, which is required to respect the Sahtu land use plan, which guaranteed the participation of Sahtu Dene and Metis residents in resource development decisions, and which could indeed protect the Dall's sheep, the woodland caribou, water, ecology and natural habitat, as well as respecting the socio-economic implications? It seems like you're saying, "We didn't get these lands preserved through the national park; therefore, all is lost. It didn't achieve the conservation goal." Wouldn't you agree that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Board and the rigorous regime in place also have conservation and environmental protection goals that could well provide protection if a mine should be proposed in sensitive wildlife habitat, for example?
Ms. Woodley: It's critically important in the context of any landscape to have core protected areas set aside and also rigorous and sustainable management of the rest of the landscape. Both protected areas and these regulatory regimes are critically important to ensure that, together, landscapes are managed in a way that protects their ecological values.
Nááts'ihch'oh is a national park proposal. The role of national parks is to protect the ecological integrity first and foremost of an ecosystem. The role of the Nááts'ihch'oh National Park has a huge impact not only on the area itself but On the entire South Nahanni Watershed, being the headwaters of that greater Nahanni ecosystem. There is a World Heritage Site downstream, and all the water that flows for the Nááts'ihch'oh goes into the South Nahanni River.
The science is strong on this. There was a rigorous science process, lots of evidence collected to inform the decision. Our concern is that with this boundary there are such critically important wildlife areas, the calving and breeding grounds of the South Nahanni caribou herd, which winters in the World Heritage site and moves up the South Nahanni River every spring, up the Little Nahanni River into their calving grounds, which would be outside the park and potentially open to mineral development. We know caribou do not do well — they are extremely sensitive — with road and mineral development. There is an opportunity here to protect an entire range for that caribou herd. It's one of the few opportunities in the world to do so.
Our concern is that the Nááts'ihch'oh, with this boundary, will not adequately protect the ecological integrity of the South Nahanni Watershed and it will not protect those wildlife values that are so critically important and that Canada has committed to protect when they nominated the Nahanni National Park Reserve, for example, as a World Heritage Site. That's our concern.
Yes, it's important to have these regulatory mechanisms to protect the entire landscape, but it's also important that we design national parks in a way that will protect the ecological values that they are designed to protect.
Senator Patterson: I have some more, but I don't want to monopolize the time.
The Chair: I'll put you down for a second round. I'd like to follow up with a couple of questions.
I listened to your presentation, and it seemed to me that to some degree you were reluctantly indicating — these are my words, not yours — that this might be a good and important step in beginning the preservation of territory within a park system. Would it be better to abandon this process at this stage and start all over and try to go for the home run that you're looking for? Or would it be important to establish this critical piece of territory in the configuration that is proposed, for which we are aware there is substantial northern support with regard to this proposal, and then to pursue — as you have I think implied — the continuing effort to add to the lands that come under further protection, protection within the concept of the park as opposed to the other protections that Senator Patterson has indicated? Could you comment on that flow?
Ms. Woodley: That's a difficult question. Obviously what is included in the boundary needs to be included in another boundary. It's important that all of those areas, that plus, are protected.
It's difficult to have this conversation without having had the opportunity to hear from the Sahtu Dene and Metis, for example. We respect the rights and the interests of the Sahtu Dene and Metis, absolutely. Obviously their voice is critical to this, and we've been working to support their efforts.
In the package, there are also some responses to the announcement of the boundary back in 2012 from communities. Obviously I can't speak for them.
It is a step forward. However, it will not, as I mentioned, protect the natural values in a way that will protect the ecological integrity of that area. There is much more work to be done and, whether it happens now or later, it needs to happen, and those areas need to be secured in order to protect the national park.
The Chair: Some have characterized the consultation process that led to this park as a major step forward by Parks Canada with regard to its approach to taking into consideration various interests in a territory — specifically, that this is an occasion in which the historic rights of those who have been using the territory have been taken into significant consideration with regard to creating the park, that is, to continue to allow certain historic hunting rights.
It's my understanding that there was very strong interest in northern communities in maintaining access to mining, which brings with it education and other opportunities for the population to progress, and that those have been included in some careful way with regard to the construction of the parks boundary.
Those of us who are familiar with past park creation are familiar with the so-called expropriation approach to creating a park. In various briefings that I've heard on this by different groups, this has been used as an example of a new approach by Parks Canada to be able to take into consideration the interests of those who have traditionally used the land. Is that a fair reflection by those who have been putting that forward?
Ms. Woodley: I think it's a fair reflection of the new approach — well, it's not even so new any longer — of the current approach of Parks Canada in creating national parks. There have been no expropriations, and they haven't been allowed since the 1970s.
Most of the national parks in Northern Canada have been created through Aboriginal land claims agreements, whether it be in Nunavut or in the Torngats in northern Labrador or the expanded Nahanni as part of that negotiation of the land claim agreement, Nááts'ihch'oh. These are all being created through land claims agreements.
Absolutely, the rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples are being reflected in the process, and this process also. There were many years of negotiation towards an impact and benefit agreement between Parks Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Metis. These were successful. There is an impact and benefit agreement in place. The rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples for traditional use of lands are absolutely respected in this and other national parks that are created in the North these days.
Yes, I think there's a characterization that this is a solid path forward in terms of the approach, but again, I want to highlight that the process, which was a rigorous public process, a long negotiation, was on track towards something that was a compromise that would have better reflected the needs of wildlife and respected third-party rights. What came out at the end of the day was not consistent with the direction those discussions were going in for many years. At the very end of the process, a new boundary option was put forward that was not consistent with the direction that things had been going.
I encourage you to read the responses in the package at the time that that new boundary was announced, which includes some responses from local communities. That's why I think it's important to ensure it's not a lead-time issue that's precluding participation from local communities in the process.
The Chair: When you say consultations and the result of that, you're referring to the 1,600 number in the document we have?
Ms. Woodley: No, the entire consultation process was much longer than just that period.
The Chair: Right, but in terms of evidence, what appears in the report is 1,600?
Ms. Woodley: Which includes the narrative about what was heard in local communities as well.
The Chair: Right, and of those you suggested that approximately 1,000 were southerners in terms of input.
Ms. Woodley: The population of the South is much higher, but if you read through the —
The Chair: I'm just establishing what those numbers are.
Senator Eaton: Thank you. I think you do absolutely wonderful work. I'm just looking through here. Nahanni National Park protects over 30,000 square kilometres.
Ms. Woodley: It's exactly 30,000, I think.
Senator Patterson: It's 35,000, isn't it?
Ms. Woodley: I think it's 30,000, pretty much on the dot.
Senator Eaton: This is something that has interested me when I've looked through what's going on in British Columbia and Alberta, and now with this. There seems to be a very strong ecological movement that is most often funded by money coming from very large foundations in the United States.
What do you say to people, Ms. Woodley, who say that organizations such as yours do more than just protect wildlife but are really very anti-development and that if you had your way you'd make Canada into one big national park where we'd all live happily ever after? What do you say to criticisms like that?
Ms. Woodley: It's absolutely not true, obviously. We work closely with industry in many cases. We are a partner in the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. We support both —
Senator Eaton: Was the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement funded largely by the Pew Foundation in the United States? It takes a lot of Canada's North, does it not?
Ms. Woodley: No. We have multiple sources of funding for that work, and no it's absolutely not. We are partnering with many forest companies to do planning for conservation with the Forest Products Association of Canada. We support a balanced approach. We are looking at what is required to achieve the conservation of the natural values is much more than is currently on the ground.
Internationally, Canada and the rest of the world, for example, have committed to protecting at least 17 per cent of our lands and 10 per cent of our waters by 2020 under the Convention on Biological Diversity, because there is a recognition globally that we have not protected enough of our landscape in order to achieve the conservation of biodiversity while also achieving economic development.
Senator Eaton: This is other people looking at us; this is not what we have decided, right?
Ms. Woodley: We signed on.
Senator Eaton: We signed on, but we didn't decide to do this. It is other people sitting outside Canada who decided that we should this?
Ms. Woodley: Canada is a signatory to the convention, so it is the international community, including Canada, which endorsed that plan for biodiversity.
Senator Eggleton: What percentage are we at now?
Ms. Woodley: We are at about 10 per cent on land and 1 per cent on our oceans, so we have a long way to go.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates we need more habitat protected, particularly for sensitive species like caribou that require large intact ecosystems in order to survive.
National parks are part of that. There is a system plan for national parks that has been in place since the 1970s. It's designed to ensure there is an example of each kind of our landscapes in Canada. A portion of that is protected for all time to have a representative example of each of the different kinds of landscapes.
Also, our national parks are huge economic engines in Canada. For every dollar that's spent by the federal government on national parks, at least $6 is going back to the GDP from direct and indirect jobs generated through that. So there is really strong evidence that not only are these national parks necessary to protect our ecosystems and landscapes, they are also good economic generators. In small rural and remote communities, in many cases, there are not a lot of options. They do not provide huge numbers of jobs in local communities, but some stable, long-term jobs that can diversify local economies.
Senator Patterson: I want to follow up on our last exchange on the other regulatory process and the other tools available. You talked about the need for science, scientific input and the importance of ecological integrity.
I have to ask you again: Let's say a company would be foolish enough to propose a mineral development in a caribou calving ground or a sensitive area — and I don't think that would happen — would you not agree that in addition to the Sahtu Dene and Metis, who are the prime users of caribou and will have a guaranteed role in the regulatory process, the scientists you speak of, your organization, the N.W.T. Ecology Action Centre, all those interests will have a voice and an opportunity to express their concerns? And will the regional board not also have every opportunity to consider what you describe as ecological integrity? Will it not have the ability to ensure that there is protection for sensitive environmental and ecological issues?
It seems to me that you're suggesting to this committee that all is lost because the area was not protected under the national park reserve, but there is a whole other rigorous regulatory regime there in which the Dene and Metis — residents and the primary users the region — have a big voice. Are you not skating over the opportunities for further protection that will be available in the regulatory process?
Ms. Woodley: There are certainly other protective measures in options available to the Sahtu; for example the Sahtu Land Use Plan is the broad landscape approach, which the Sahtu have a strong role in. In terms of caribou, though, we know they are incredibly sensitive in their calving grounds, and so this is an area where any kind of development could have a significant, detrimental impact on those caribou herds.
There is an opportunity here. Again, if we want to be sure that the South Nahanni herd of caribou is sustained into the future, then the best opportunity to make that happen is to provide caribou calving grounds with permanent protection, the strongest form of protection, the most resources for monitoring and science that are available for any protective measure in this country, and include that in the national park. If in the establishment of a national park we are leaving out caribou calving grounds in order to allow for potential mineral development in the future, that is not putting the priority on ecological integrity. It will jeopardize the opportunity and ability for Parks Canada as a manager, cooperatively managing with the Sahtu, to be able to ensure the protection of the ecological integrity of that area.
These areas are so important to the well-being of wildlife in that area that the best option is to include them in this national park while the opportunity exists, and the opportunity does exist to include them in the national park. These are lands that are not all allocated; they are available for protection. There are some areas that are, and there is a compromise that can be made, but for the areas not already allocated, why would we not include them in the national park?
Senator Patterson: It's the best opportunity, but not the only opportunity. I think you've agreed that the regulatory regime could also provide protections in that area. I'd like to ask you what Senator Ogilvie asked. Your organization worked for 45 years on the Nahanni; you had a triumphant success in expanding the Nahanni park boundary six-fold in 2009, to your credit — a pivotal influence in that — and 30,000 square kilometres. I stand corrected on that. Now with that park we are going to add another 5,000 square kilometres, somewhere around the size of Switzerland. These are not insignificant. If you put the two parks together it will be the third largest national park in Canada.
I ask you this: Are you saying today we should reject this bill and not pass it, or we should recognize this as significant progress? As you said, your organization will be there, well-funded, with funding from the Moore Foundation through Tides Canada, which I know are significant funds. You'll be there to make sure that these issues are raised in the regulatory process if the Sahtu Dene and Metis don't.
Should we pass the bill or should we scrap it?
Ms. Woodley: There are other alternatives. What I'm here to say is that those areas need to be protected. We do respect the rights and interests of the Sahtu Dene and Metis. Again, that's why I made the point that it would be good to be sure that if they are interested in getting engaged in this discussion that it's not short time frames that are preventing them from doing so, and I think that's important.
Should the bill go forward? The boundaries should be amended; the boundaries should be better. That's our recommendation. But we also respect the Sahtu Dene and Metis rights and interests, and so it's very difficult to make that a conclusive recommendation without having had the time to discuss and hear from them.
Senator Patterson: Would you agree that the Sahtu Dene and Metis in the impact benefit agreement signed off on the boundary that's before us in this bill?
Ms. Woodley: I can't speak to that.
Senator Patterson: Their signature is on the document.
Ms. Woodley: I haven't seen the document. We're not party to that document.
The Chair: No, but with regard to your speculation and your comments with regard to that, this is a very important point that Senator Patterson is putting on the record.
Senator Cordy: I'm wondering about the part of the bill that deals with water licences. The bill says:
The Minister may issue, amend, renew, suspend or cancel — or approve the assignment of — licences for the use of waters in the . . . access roads . . .
When I asked Mr. Vician the question yesterday, he said the department would be better able to answer the question, but I'm going to run it by you anyway. Mr. Vician, who was our witness yesterday, is the Deputy Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment for the Northwest Territories. He said he felt there would be a fulsome hearing regarding licences for the use of water, but that isn't what is in the bill. What's in the bill is the minister alone. One would hope that you would have a fulsome dialogue, but that's not in the bill. It doesn't say anywhere in the bill that there will be consultation or discussion; ultimately the minister can sign off on granting licences for water use for the access roads.
Is that something we should be concerned about, or is that the normal way of proceeding?
Ms. Woodley: I actually read that with some concern as well, but I don't know enough. I have not got the details on what it means. I would certainly welcome learning from officials as well what the implications of that are because I'm not sure, although it did also raise some flag for me. Without further clarity, I'm not able to respond to that.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Chair, I don't see the officials on our agenda.
The Chair: They are available to us in the next hour for the clause-by-clause consideration and they can answer this question.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Ms. Woodley: Could I clarify one response? Would that be possible?
The Chair: Certainly.
Ms. Woodley: In response to Senator Patterson, I wanted to say that in terms of other options for protection, the land use plan is the other option for protection, but it does not provide for permanent protection. That's one of the challenges: It doesn't provide for that level of security that the national park provides.
The Chair: Thank you.
Well, thank you, Ms. Woodley, for being here. You've articulated your position very clearly on these matters. It's very good to have you here with us today, and I thank you for that.
We will now proceed into the next session in which Parks Canada officials will be invited to the table to help the committee with regard to clause by clause and any questions such as the one put by Senator Cordy.
The agenda item for this session is to deal with clause-by-clause review of the bill. I believe there are some questions that members of the committee want to put to Parks Canada with regard to the bill and possibly clauses that we are dealing with. What I would like to do is ask you this: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada)? If you agree then I will immediately open up the floor to questions on the bill.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cordy: You clearly heard my question, and it's related to the water licences. The witness we had yesterday said there would be a fulsome hearing. That's not indicated in the bill. The bill clearly states that the minister may issue on his or her own that water licences be granted — clause 4, page 2 of the bill. For anybody looking, it's page 2 of the bill, at the top. It's actually subsection 41.1(4), which would be replaced by a new subsection (4).
Kevin McNamee, Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. If I may, Mr. Chair, I will make the introductions.
Kevin McNamee, I'm the director of the Protected Areas Establishment Branch with Parks Canada. With me is Darlene Pearson, who is the director of our Policy, Legislative and Cabinet Affairs Branch; and Sonja Beharry, who is our legal counsel, who had the distinct pleasure to be directly involved in the negotiations of the impact and benefit plan with the Sahtu Dene and Metis, and also is our expert on the bill.
To go to your question, senator: If there is any mineral development project proposed on the lands outside of the national park reserve, the environmental assessment for that process goes through the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. That is the board that conducts the environmental assessment that would look at the mineral development project, which would obviously include a road. That board would do the studies, hold the hearings and look at the overall project. At the end of day, that board will come to a conclusion and will make recommendations on the project, including recommendations to the permitting authorities.
In the case of a mining project, Parks Canada, and ultimately our Minister of the Environment, is the permitting minister for that portion of the road that falls within the Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve.
The part of the hearing process that you are asking about would be part of the board's process. All of those kinds of issues would be reviewed overall. Then, the recommendation would be made to the minister who would issue the permit, which can put in place mitigation measures.
Senator Cordy: Is it in the regulations or in the legislation that this board would have to go through the process?
Darlene Pearson, Director, Policy, Legislative and Cabinet Affairs Branch, Strategic and Plans Directorate, Parks Canada: The purpose of the amendments that we're making is not to duplicate the existing regime. It is quite clear that we're trying to make sure that there is a seamless approach for permitting both inside and outside the park. The road going through the park is 24 kilometres long, so it represents a relatively small portion of the entire length of the road. There is already a regime under the federal Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act that deals with an overall approach to project assessment. As a permitting authority only for the road, that's what these provisions in the bill deal with — authorization for the minister to issue those permits for the portion that runs through the park.
Senator Cordy: That was my question. I'm not suggesting we set up additional federal regimes; trust me on that one. My concern was that there is a process in place and that these discussions and negotiations would be carried. Thank you very much for that.
My second question relates to the top of page 4 of the bill: proposed subsections 41.4(5) and 41.4(6) on existing leases, easements and licences of occupation relating to public lands in the park. Could you give us an idea of how many existing leases, easements and licences we currently have within the park?
Mr. McNamee: This provides the minister with the authority to continue what is there. There are clearly no mineral leases, because those are not permitted within a national park or a national park reserve. The only things that might be in existence are with respect to the road that is there at the moment.
Chihong Canada Mining company is working on upgrading the road, so it's my understanding that there is one water permit in place at this time.
Senator Cordy: You are saying that current leases and licences would continue and that nobody would be adversely affected by the national park.
Mr. McNamee: That's right.
Senator Eggleton: We have attempted to get the Sahtu Dene and Metis people here. We have not been able to do that perhaps because it's a long distance and short notice has been given to them about the matter.
What is the rush on the bill? Why do we have to rush this thing through?
Mr. McNamee: Well, as an official answering questions for the committee, Senator Eggleton, I will not characterize this as a rush. The committee and the government set the agenda. I will comment that there is currently an interim land withdrawal order in place over the lands that will eventually become the national park reserve if and when this bill is passed. That land withdrawal order prohibits any disposition of the lands proposed for the park for any future industrial activity; and that land withdrawal order expires on March 31, 2015. In less than a year, that land withdrawal order expires; and one need only look to see how long it takes a bill to come into effect to realize that there is a clock.
Senator Eggleton: If we held this down to hear from them in two to three weeks, it wouldn't create a problem with respect to March of next year.
Mr. McNamee: I would leave that question to the committee, senator.
Senator Eggleton: I will ask that question of the sponsor of the bill later.
In terms of the consultation process, you provided three options. From the information we've received, I understand most people wanted the first option. Maybe even more they supported protection of the entire South Nahanni River Watershed. I don't know if that's higher than Option 1 or is an option. After that consultation, which people have said was well done, you ignored what people wanted. Very few people seem to want Option 3. Why would you go for an option that the least number of people were prepared to support?
Mr. McNamee: We have followed with interest the discussion over the last couple of days around the approach to consultation, the results and how they have been interpreted and used. I'd say in one sense that the establishment of this national park reserve responds favorably to what 96 per cent of the 1,600 who participated and provided written comments wanted to see — a national park reserve established. Through those consultations, also priority was put on a range of national park values, including wildlife. We believe that with this boundary we have achieved a range of conservation objectives, which, coupled with Nahanni, result in the seven-fold expansion of the original Nahanni National Park Reserve, which is an incredible conservation achievement for this country. However, I would point out that consultation is only one, albeit important, of the factors that go into the process of creating a new national park or national park reserve.
Amongst other things, through legislation and policy as well as through land claim obligations, we need to consider the views of Aboriginal people, including negotiating an impact and benefit plan. Also, we need to consider the stakeholders and the people who hold licences in the area; and there are a number of them as was fully acknowledged in the impact and benefit plan we negotiated with the Sahtu Dene. We also have to deal with other governments.
In the case of the creation of this park, the Government of the Northwest Territories is an important partner. In part I would point out that we were working on the park boundaries at the same time that the devolution agreement was being negotiated with the territorial government. They now have administration and control of the lands outside the park, but as you could see going through that process, the territorial government wanted a strong say in the boundary.
We also have to deal with other federal departments, and so Natural Resources Canada, which offers opinions and information with respect to the strategic value of mineral assets in the area, is also an important player in determining the boundaries, as is Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. As well, a range of studies was done on an area including a mineral and energy resource assessment. It is with consideration for that range of factors that we civil servants provide advice on a boundary to ministers. But the government, at the end of day, has to take into account what comes out of all those various things. I hope that provides you with a sense that shaping a park boundary does not necessarily come down to how many people said which option they would want.
Senator Eggleton: Okay, I understand what you're saying. But then if Options 1 and 2 were not realistic, why would you dangle that out in front of people and make them think that was a possibility? You've told me that when all things are considered, and you listed many of them, Option 3 is the most logical position to take. Why would you dangle those other two in front of them and give them hope that there's something more extensive?
Mr. McNamee: I would say, senator, that those three options were the result of work that was done by the senior mineral and energy resource assessment committee, which includes senior representatives from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories.
You heard from the Government of the Northwest Territories senior representative yesterday, Mr. Vician. That committee reached a consensus to bring to the public three boundary options that we thought scanned the realm of possibility. It wasn't a case of dangling options out there for the public. The committee felt that those were three very realistic options to get from the public their sense of what they thought of this area.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. Well, I'll leave that one for now. I do have another question, though, about the kind of concerns we've heard from, for example, the CPAWS group here this morning, that they do not think there's adequate protection for the wildlife and the ecological integrity of the South Nahanni Watershed.
Is there a review mechanism? In three years, five years or whatever, will you be looking at whether or not these boundaries are still adequate to meet the needs that you think can be met with Option 3?
Mr. McNamee: There's nothing specific within the Canada National Parks Act or the impact and benefit plan that the government has signed with the Sahtu Dene and Metis that would suggest that within X number of years we would review the boundary of this national park reserve.
I would suggest that our short-term priorities, as we move forward, would be, amongst other things, implementing the terms of the impact and benefit plan with respect to hiring facility construction and ensuring that economic benefits from this park do flow to the Sahtu Dene and Metis. It will be on trying to diversify the tourism offered with this national park reserve.
But I would also suggest that, as with any national park or national park reserve that we have across Canada, part of the job of park managers and superintendents is to develop a collaborative relationship with adjacent landowners, be they private landowners, mineral holders or other governments. I would simply point to Nahanni National Park Reserve, where members may be aware there is a pre-existing mineral mine run by Canadian Zinc Corporation. We have a memorandum of understanding with Canadian Zinc where we collaborate on issues of common concern.
Our priority will be on establishing those collaborative relationships so that the kinds of issues that have been raised by this committee and in front of this committee with respect to wildlife and others have forums to be addressed in.
Senator Eggleton: Could I finally ask — perhaps this is to Ms. Beharry — for a very brief summary of the negotiations that went on with the Sahtu Dene and Metis and what your understanding was as to the reason for them signing the document, if you could get into that briefly?
Mr. McNamee: I'll try to be brief, senator. I'm not the best at being brief.
The idea of protecting — I should point out that the South Nahanni Watershed actually has a line across that divides it where two thirds of the southern portion of the watershed are within the Dehcho, so we worked with them to expand Nahanni, and this portion is within the Sahtu settlement area. So under the comprehensive land claim agreement that was signed back in the 1990s, in order to establish a national park, we have an obligation to negotiate an impact and benefit plan.
The Sahtu Dene and Metis were very interested in protecting the South Nahanni Watershed, so through the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy, they first broached the idea of establishing a separate, stand-alone national park reserve within their traditional territory. In 2008, the government and the Sahtu Dene formally announced that they would begin the process of negotiating an impact and benefit plan. That concluded in March 2012, when the Minister of the Environment responsible for Parks Canada signed the agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Metis.
I hope that gives you a sense that it has been a collaborative effort from the beginning.
Senator Eggleton: They support this plan?
Mr. McNamee: This plan is an obligation under the land claim agreement. They negotiated it with us as partners, and they signed it. They sought community resolutions by each one of the five signatories to it, and then they celebrated it with the Prime Minister in August of 2012. In fact, when the Prime Minister went to visit Nááts'ihch'oh or Mount Wilson, which is the sacred site after which this park is named, they celebrated and shared that with the Prime Minister and his wife.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My question is on access roads. Provisions in the bill allow for two mining access roads. From what I understand, one of those roads already exists. Is that correct?
Mr. McNamee: Yes.
Senator Chaput: So the second road is going to have to be built?
Mr. McNamee: Yes.
Senator Chaput: What will the length and width of the second road be? Will the first one be modified to make it longer and wider?
[English]
Mr. McNamee: There is no proposal at this point, so what this legislation does is signal, provide the minister with the authority to permit that road, should it ever be required.
There is a mineral claim held by Playfair Mining Ltd. in the Lened Creek area, and they have no active proposal at this point. They simply have the claim. Should they decide that they want to develop something, then it would have to go through a review process. They ran a bulldozer through that area a number of years ago, and that's about it. The best way to describe it is there's some sort of existing trail.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I think we can say that eventually, there are going to have to be roads, because of the mines that will be developed; there may also be a lot of traffic. Often, the traffic around mines is not necessarily compatible with wildlife. Once both roads are built — because the bill provides for two roads — how are we going to ensure that they do not have adverse effects on the animals in the reserve? Will there be monitoring?
[English]
Mr. McNamee: Again, I would point out that should any project come forward, that project would go to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. They are the ones that would conduct an environmental assessment. We may have the opportunity to provide input, as will others. That process, that environmental assessment, would consider those kinds of issues.
As Ms. Pearson is pointing out to me, when a licence is then issued to the company, it would specify the terms and conditions under which that mining project could proceed. In addition, when it comes to the very small portion of that second road that would be within the national park reserve, our minister could put in place whatever mitigation measures are required.
Again, I stress that it is that broader board that is already in place, which was referenced by Mr. Vician yesterday, that is the body that would ultimately review those kinds of things.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I'm hoping one of you can answer the question about the impact and benefit agreement. I know it's not in the act. My understanding is that Aboriginal peoples will be involved in various jobs having to do with the park, but I wondered if there was a gender component in that, a statement around affirmative action for women.
Mr. McNamee: Thanks for the question, senator. In the impact and benefit plan itself, there is no provision or mention of gender equity or hiring. We heard your question yesterday, and we go back to the fact that the impact and benefit plan is an obligation that flows from the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement; so we have to negotiate a plan that is consistent with our obligations under the land claim.
Under the land claim, there are no provisions for negotiating an agreement that deals with gender equity. What it does provide for is providing to beneficiaries of the land claim preferential hiring, so we've structured the agreement around what our land claim obligations are, which focused on preferential hiring.
I think it might be more appropriate if Ms. Pearson addressed this.
Ms. Pearson: Just to build on what my colleague has said, the impact and benefit plan isn't the only vehicle to deal with gender issues. Certainly Parks Canada's own human resources policies pay particular attention to equality issues, not only gender but the other equality issues. Our own hiring policies are conceived with that in mind.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There is a responsibility because of the Charter to ensure that there is affirmative action wherever it's needed to be applied. When you're negotiating these kinds of terms, is it not an obligation of your ministry to ensure that when the situation with these groups is not as favourable as it might be, and when other sectors of the government are trying to deal with violence against women in Aboriginal communities, Parks Canada actually inserts such a statement in an agreement?
Sonja Beharry, Legal Counsel, Environment (Parks Canada) Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: As Mr. McNamee mentioned, the negotiation of the impact and benefit agreement is consistent with the obligations under the land claim. The land claim itself is a section 35 protected document, which means it has protection under the Constitution, and we cannot go outside of the obligations that are within the land claim.
Thus, any obligations for gender equality meant to be addressed at the hiring process under Parks Canada's own policies cannot be written into the impact and benefit agreement, something that is not consistent with the actual terms that are in the land claim.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That's a very clear answer. I had one other question yesterday which you may have heard around the sacred space in the park. I asked whether there would be any measures to protect these and make them out- of-bounds for tourists and anyone else. I don't know if the answer is "yes" or "if needs be." How will you deal with that?
Mr. McNamee: There are a couple of ways to answer your question, senator. First of all, we would not unilaterally, as Parks Canada, impose any strict measures. Under the impact and benefit plan, a cooperative management board is established with equal representation from Parks Canada and from the Sahtu Dene and Metis. It is precisely those kinds of issues that the board would debate if they came up.
If the Sahtu Dene and Metis were concerned about a sacred site and wanted to institute protective measures, that would be a subject of discussion at the cooperative management board.
In addition, Parks Canada possesses a zoning system, and we have special protection zones that can close off certain areas for access. We have the forum for that discussion and the tools to implement whatever comes out of that.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm now going to invite you to remain, if you would, for the clause-by-clause consideration in case a question arises from my colleagues, if you're willing to do so.
Colleagues, are you in agreement that they stay?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eggleton: I have a question for the sponsor of the bill before you go further.
The Chair: Certainly. Sorry, senator.
Senator Eggleton: Senator Patterson, what's the hurry for this? You recognize we don't have the Sahtu Dene and Metis people here to respond directly and to contribute to this dialogue. Shouldn't we try to provide them more time? I'm not sure why that is. I know they're a long way up North and perhaps it takes more time and they need more notice — perhaps it has been too short — but what is the rush in proceeding with this bill at this time?
Senator Patterson: I guess I should be cautious here; I'm not the minister.
Senator Eggleton: No, but you're representing the —
Senator Patterson: But I am the enthusiastic sponsor of the bill, and I have discussed the bill with the minister.
The honourable senator mentioned the Sahtu Dene and Metis. It seems to me that the issue that is of concern before this committee and from the previous witness has to do with the boundary of the park. That's probably the principle concern. I think everyone is in agreement with establishing this park, if I understand right. It's generally well received in Canada.
I agree with you, it's unfortunate that the Sahtu Dene and Metis did not respond, as I understand it, to the clerk's invitation to attend. Perhaps we can get Mr. McNamee or Ms. Beharry to verify this. It's quite important that the committee note that the impact and benefit agreement, as I understand it, does include a reference to the boundary of the park. This agreement was signed by representatives of the Sahtu Dene and Metis. With regard to the issue that has been identified, it's fair to say that we have the agreement of the Sahtu Dene and Metis to that boundary.
I will say I understand that since the impact and benefit agreement was signed in 2012, the Prime Minister came to the region, met with the Sahtu Dene and Metis and was encouraged to add some land to the park to include O'Grady Lake, which is an access point for float planes and could be the site of a wilderness lodge.
I would defer to the witnesses, but not only do the Sahtu Dene and Metis endorse the boundary, but they also got an extension of the boundary. Maybe I should stop there.
The Chair: Mr. McNamee, could you confirm or clarify the comments of the senator?
Mr. McNamee: If I may, senator, I'm clarifying the record. I'm not adding to the discussion about whether or not you want to extend hearings. I'm just providing you with the facts.
The Chair: Exactly. We're not putting that question to you.
Mr. McNamee: Good. Thank you.
I'll go into a little detail here, but the impact and benefit plan is 31 pages long. Appendix 7 contains the map of the boundary, Option 3 that they signed on to in March of 2012.
As the senator stated, there was a request to extend the park to O'Grady Lake, for the very reasons that the senator cited. They wanted the land included. It provides an access point for visitors and they could possibly build some kind of lodge to facilitate access, which is in accordance with the kinds of things that Parks Canada is also interested in.
Under the impact and benefit plan, if there are to be any changes to the boundary that is in Appendix 7, we have an obligation to consult the signatories to the impact and benefit plan. We carried out that consultation and we informed them of the change. The result is that they unanimously endorsed that.
There is one other change to the boundary. The Government of the Northwest Territories requested a small exclusion of an area of one square kilometre — they refer to it as an ice-patch area where they do some archaeological research — and the government agreed to do that. There were two very small changes. We've consulted on that and they agreed.
Senator Eggleton: Then O'Grady Lake is included in Bill S-5?
Mr. McNamee: To be precise, senator, the bill includes a 20-square-kilometre addition to the national park reserve that goes to the southern shore of O'Grady Lake and then goes out 100 metres into the waters. We did that in part because on the other side of the lake there is a guided outfitter who conducts hunts. Commercial sport hunting is not permitted within a national park reserve.
On top of that, we also learned that, from time to time, the mining industry likes to be able to land a float plane on a lake, so it doesn't include the lake. It provides the extension to the lake plus the southern shoreline.
Senator Eggleton: But it meets their request?
Mr. McNamee: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: That's the point. Thank you.
The Chair: Okay. I shall now move to clause by clause.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: There is a comment from Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: I'm actually speaking to the whole provision at this point in time. I regret, as we've said, that we did not have the Sahtu Dene and Metis here, but I am cognizant of both the sponsor of the bill, his knowledge of the area, his knowledge of the file, plus our colleague Senator Sibbeston, who spoke on the matter after his own investigation, his own knowledge of the area. He did indicate that, bottom line, the Sahtu Dene and Metis position is strengthened by having settled a land claim. They have negotiated the best deal they can get with respect to the benefits. He indicates a little skepticism about things.
He said, given the history:
Time will tell if they will get everything they negotiated for. I certainly intend to keep an eye on Parks Canada to see if they deliver.
So Senator Sibbeston is going to watch you.
This is from a speech he gave. He's not here this week, but he gave a speech in the chamber to this effect.
Because of the way in which the park is taking the initiative and the care to properly consult with the Sahtu and K'asho Got'ine people, I am in agreement with this bill.
"I am in agreement with this bill," is his bottom line.
Certainly, from hearing from groups like CPAWS, I wonder if more doesn't need to be done to protect the ecology and wildlife of the area. But I'm going to support these clauses that you're about to take the vote on on the basis of comments that have been made by two people who know the North very well.
I look on it also as a first step, because I think if there is in fact a need for better protection, that's something that we should consider further down the line. I would encourage Parks Canada to do a review, say in five years, to determine whether in fact the boundaries are meeting those conditions and whether there needs to be further consultation.
In addition to that, I will have one short observation when we get to that point.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. If I could follow Senator Eggleton's lead, I agree. I think when we establish national parks, particularly in the North, it's a positive thing.
I would also like to congratulate Senator Patterson. It is such a treat when the sponsor of the bill is able to respond to questions in the way that you have. It's clear that you have worked extremely hard to gain knowledge and, as an opposition member, I truly appreciate when the sponsor is that knowledgeable about a subject. It was a pleasure to have you do that.
Chair, you said there was substantial northern support. I would have really appreciated hearing from the Sahtu Dene and the Metis. I know the sponsor of the bill said that he spoke to the minister, but we didn't get a chance to speak to the minister because she wasn't a witness here. You certainly have an advantage that I didn't have, or our side didn't have, in speaking to the minister about it.
I agree that I'm not sure why there's a big rush in June because the house is not going to be dealing with this bill until September, or I seriously doubt they will be looking at it until the house returns in September. It would really have been nice to have the Sahtu Dene and the Metis. Just to have two witnesses, Ms. Woodley and Mr. Vician, and department officials who were kind enough to sit through our clause-by-clause consideration, it certainly seems to me that there is, for some reason, a great rush to get through the bill in June. That's not to say I'm against the bill. I think I indicated earlier that I'm not.
I'm disappointed because, from the evidence that I've heard and read, it appears that most people were in favour of Option 1. I know you've told us that the Sahtu Dene and Metis have signed off on Option 3, but I would have liked to have been able to ask them questions about why. Was it a case of Option 3 or nothing? That's certainly different than they preferred Option 3 over Option 1. I would have liked to have been able to have them here to discuss that with them.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I can assure you that the clerk made every effort and unfortunately received no response, although it is clear from other testimony that they were aware of their invitation.
Senator Chaput: Thank you. I agree with my colleagues, and I have nothing to add.
I want to thank you, senator.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I shall now return.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Eggleton: Just one simple one. I think, considering the impact this has on the Sahtu Dene and Metis Nation, we should note that they were invited to appear before the committee but that no response was received, period, that's all.
The Chair: You've got that clearly?
Is it agreed to append that observation?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, with that observation, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's agreed?
Thank you very much, colleagues.
I want to thank my colleagues for the way in which they have carried out the review of yet another bill before this committee. In this case the questions that were asked were serious questions and, in the end, I believe we got answers to them that certainly satisfy me with all the important issues.
This is an important step in the ongoing program of Parks Canada in that area. It was testified this morning that it's the third stage of expansion of building a park in that area. Very clearly it will have its eye on other issues in conjunction with those parties with which it works in this part of our vast country.
I want to thank the officials as well for being able to help us today, and I, too, want to acknowledge Senator Patterson who has, in the past, during his time in the Senate, demonstrated his knowledge and commitment, not only to our country but the North in particular. In this case, Senator Patterson, you have been immensely helpful and I thank you.
With that I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)