Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 20 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday June 28, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-27, respecting the national parks of Canada, met this day at 8:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Mira Spivak (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome, Madam minister, and officials. We are here to consider Bill C-27, respecting the National Parks of Canada. Please proceed.
Hon. Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage: With me this evening are: Mr. Bruce Amos, Director General, Parks Canada; Ms Susan Katz, Director, Legislation and Policy, Parks Canada; and Ms Lucie Bourbonnière, Legal Counsel, Justice Canada.
I will begin my remarks by thanking you and your committee for these very special efforts. This is an important bill, and the fact that you are sitting late into the night is, I think, a reflection of your commitment to the process.
You may ask: Why now? This process began not a week ago or a month ago but five years ago, when the Banff Bow Valley study highlighted the serious threats that were extant in the continued development of Banff National Park. At that time, UNESCO also requested a report on the threats to Banff in light of its designation as a world heritage site. That was a real wake-up call for Canadians.
A cross-section of Albertans reported to me, through the Banff Bow Valley study, on how to save Banff. The government implemented the recommendations of the Banff Bow Valley study through the new Banff National Park Management Plan. In particular, I want to thank all Albertans on the committee, who made those recommendations, for their wisdom.
What became clear to me, the government and the Prime Minister was that, once we looked at the Banff template, we knew that we had to go further to protect all our national parks in the national interest. As the Panel on Ecological Integrity recently pointed out, Parks Canada needs updated tools to continue to manage these special places effectively.
This is the first overhaul of our National Parks Act in 70 years. At its heart, it will restore the maintenance of ecological integrity as the prime condition for parks management, as was recommended by the Panel on Ecological Integrity.
[Translation]
For the first time, ecological integrity will be the priority in all aspects of stewardship for Canada's national parks. Following Mr. Jacques Gérin's report, we agree that ecological integrity will be the central theme of stewardship, including a long-term vision for each park, provisions for the protection of resources or their restoration, zoning, visitors' use and the establishment of preservation areas.
[English]
I was also pleased to accept the recommendation of the standing committee on the amendment of the definition of "ecological integrity."
We believe that the process being set out for the creation of new parks and the enlarging of current parks is an effective one, using an Order in Council process. We are, in particular, thankful for the role Parliament will play, because it will continue to exercise scrutiny over those special heritage places. National parks exist for the benefit of all Canadians and future generations and, thus, they are worthy of national debate by representatives of both houses. Parliamentarians will be able to assess the degree of support for the new parks or park reserves, and if either house rejects any proposal, it will not proceed.
The new act will take steps to control commercial development in park communities. Community plans will be tabled in Parliament. The legislation makes provisions to set the boundaries of the communities, the boundaries of commercial zones, and cap the maximum square footage of commercial development. These elements of the community plans will be placed in a schedule of the act and they can only be changed by an act of Parliament. Thus, we are putting the protection of Canada's parks into the hands of all parliamentarians, and not just the minister.
Trafficking in wildlife is being added as a new offence. The penalties for trafficking will be governed by the penalties for poaching. There will be tough new penalties to protect wildlife and other park resources. For example, the maximum financial penalty for poaching or trafficking of a species in schedule 3 has been increased to $250,000.
In particular, the Government of Canada has committed itself to working with the First Nations, within the deadline that was established, in "Gathering Strength" and underscored by the report of the Panel on Ecological Integrity. The Canada National Parks Act establishes seven new national parks. I am hopeful that those seven new parks can be established before National Parks Day, which will be this summer.
Each of the new parks and reserves is based on a formal agreement between Canada and the respective province or territory. In addition, and I think most important, five of the new parks have really come to be thanks to the involvement of aboriginal organizations. These are Aulavik, Northwest Territories; Wapusk, Manitoba; Auyuittuq, Sirmilik and Quttinirpaaq, Nunavut. I think it is tremendously important that all Canadians understand the major contribution to the expansion of Canada's parks has been made, in particular, by aboriginal people, but also by the support that we have received from provinces and territories. This is a collaborative effort.
I was, therefore, happy to accept amendments suggested by the standing committee to guarantee respect for existing aboriginal and treaty rights as set out in the Constitution, and to strengthen the commitment to consultation with aboriginal bodies.
Madam Chair, organizations representing a great number of Canadians have made thoughtful presentations during the hearings on this bill. I might add for those of us who have gone through the second phase of this proposed legislation, the initial bill was introduced before the fall of the last Parliament. It was never enacted. The second phase has had equally deep and thoughtful debate.
The Canada Parks and Wilderness Society and the Canadian Nature Federation made comprehensive and compelling appearances. I would also note that a number of the representations made reflected the concerns expressed by representatives of parks communities in the committee of the other place.
This bill is a major step forward on many fronts, including ecological integrity, the establishment of new parks, control of commercial development, protection of wildlife, and partnership with First Nations.
The Throne Speech committed our government to the expansion of our network of Canadian parks. In 1997, the government committed itself to establishing an expert panel to review the state of ecological integrity. That panel has now reported, and we have announced an action plan.
A key element of the action plan is to make ecological integrity central in legislation and policy. Bill C-27 delivers on those commitments and will be a legacy to future generations. It is a strong bill. I believe it will be an act that will serve Canadians well. I urge you to deliberate and, if possible, to pass this bill.
Why the hurry? We need to make ecological integrity part of the law. For every day that we wait, it is another day that it is not the number one priority in law.
We need to expand our national parks network. We made a commitment to complete the parks system by the year 2000. At the current rate of additions, that goal will not be achieved in this Parliament. However, we must show good faith in moving in that direction.
Bill C-27 fulfils a commitment under the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement signed on August 12, 1999. This specific agreement requires that the three new national parks be established within one year of the signing of the agreement. Auyuittuq and Quttinirpaaq are already national park reserves to which the act applies. Sirmilik must be added to the act in order for it to apply.
Bill C-27 sets out a legislative framework for controlling commercial development in park communities. Two community plans, one for the town of Banff and one for the community of Field, have been approved. The balance of the community plans are in an advanced state of development.
Passage of Bill C-27 is needed to enable the legislative framework to be implemented. This is particularly important for the town of Banff, which is under the most serious development pressure.
The management of park communities is, I believe, a pressing issue for the residents of the parks and businesses. Bill C-27 responds to these concerns, by requiring direct consultation with representatives of park communities on land use planning and development, and by providing the minister with the authority to enter into agreements with community bodies for the delivery of the community services.
Improving aboriginal relations has been a high personal priority and, I believe, for the government. It was a major concern underlined in the Panel on Ecological Integrity. The bill provides legal assurances to aboriginal peoples that their rights will be respected in the law. It provides the means to implement agreements reached with First Nations on treaty land entitlements in Wood Buffalo National Park. It provides assurance to aboriginal peoples that they will be consulted on a wide range of policy and regulatory matters.
Last but not least, an offence of trafficking has been introduced to address the growing trends in large scale targeting and removal of wildlife and other natural resources, that is fossils and rare plants. Every day that we do not act is a day when many of these species are at risk. I would urge you to move as quickly as possible. I would be happy to make myself available for your questions.
The Chairman: As you know, the 1996 report that this committee prepared under the chairmanship of Senator Pat Carney made a recommendation about Grasslands National Park. We are pleased that that is included in the other very good elements in this bill.
Senator Banks: I have two questions.
Clause 7 refers to the establishment of parks and adding lands to the parks. Clause 34 refers to additions and changes to schedule 4. When we first saw this bill, these clauses were the same in terms of the way that they would be treated in the Senate and, I presume, in the House of Commons. Now, they are different.
Questions were asked about this. There was a considerable discussion on the floor of the Senate today. I would ask you to comment on those differences, please.
Ms Copps: In fact, clause 7 deals with the establishment of new parks, and clause 34 deals with modifications to the local plans. The Standing Committee in the House of Commons felt that there should be no limitation on debate and discussion around the establishment of a new park. Therefore, we accepted the amendment that they proposed.
The two issues are obviously different in terms of gravity. When you table a community plan, it is basically a template for management of the resource. When you establish a new park, you are creating new property entitlements and new limitations on property entitlements. We felt that should have unlimited debate.
Senator Banks: Ms Bourbonnière, I am new to this whole exercise, but I am familiar with contracts, which is as close as I ever got in my life to dealing with something resembling a bill. My experience has been that schedules exist so that items may be added, deleted or referenced. Schedules are found in many bills. Early on in the body of the bill or contract, schedules are established. I noted that in this bill schedule 4 is never established. It is merely incidentally referred to in clause 33 for the first time, and in clause 34 for the second time. There is a casual reference of something being be added to schedule 4. I had to ask myself when I got to that point in the bill: What schedule 4?
I believe I am right in saying that the first time that the words "Schedule 4" appear is in clause 33. Is that normal? I am seeking clarification. Are we satisfied that schedule 4 actually exists?
Ms Lucie Bourbonnière, Legal Counsel, Justice Canada: It is a style of legislative drafting. The drafters of the Department of Justice did include in the bill a schedule 4. It is there, and it has a subtitle. It is at page 141 of the bill, clauses 33 and 34. Thus, the schedule does exist even though all the information is not there.
There is a process within the bill to include this information. This is a common way of drafting legislation.
Senator Banks: Is it in order?
Ms Bourbonnière: Yes, it is.
Senator Chalifoux: Welcome at this late hour. Never believe anyone who says that senators do not work.
I have a couple of questions regarding the aboriginal nations. You mentioned the First Nations. In section 35 of the Constitution there are three distinct, separate nations of aboriginal peoples, the Metis, the Inuit and the First Nations.
In my long years of working with the Metis in northern Alberta, many issues arose. On the eastern slopes of the Rockies, around Grand Cache, into the Jasper area, the inhabitants are mostly Metis and non-status Indians. There are still non-status native people there today and that is because, in 1970, we moved people who lived in Nose Creek to Grand Cache. There are many Metis in the Wood Buffalo area and throughout the territories. Will you be consulting the organizations that represent them, and will you be working with them?
Ms Copps: I am advised that the non-derogation clause covers all aboriginal organizations. On a personal basis, one of the issues that we have been grappling with -- and we started work on this about two years ago -- involves specific issues of aboriginal involvement in the parks. I find it rather strange that when you go to most national parks, you learn a tremendous amount and learn very deeply about the natural spaces but nothing about the historical context. Only a couple of current parks actually explore the cultural context, one of which is co-managed by the Haida Gwaii people in British Columbia. We also have a small interpretive centre in Louisbourg which was developed by the Mi'Kmaq people. We have begun a review of all of Canada's national parks and historic sites to see if we can make that case better.
Some of you may have read in the paper about controversies surrounding some statues at Canada Place in Banff. A few newspaper articles criticized a couple of cardboard cut-outs that were planned throughout Parks Canada.
Senator Taylor: Was that the one of Gretzky?
Ms Copps: Yes, and Lucy Maude Montgomery. I have nothing to do with that interpretation, but I will underscore the original contest behind that particular Canada Place, and behind the Canada Places we are opening in all parts of the country. When people, for example, come to Banff, they should learn about Banff not only as a geographical and natural jewel, but they should also learn about the people who were there for 4,000 years and the people who came thereafter. The people who were there originally were hunters and gatherers. We have a small ad hoc committee studying the plants that have been harvested by aboriginal people for literally hundreds of years before the parks were ever established. Many of the areas where they grow are now out of bounds. We are trying to find a way to ensure that aboriginal rights are respected and at the same time have ecological integrity as a guiding role model in all of our decisions.
We are making progress, but there is more to do. We have a round table planned for this fall with representatives of Parks Canada and aboriginal leaders from across the country who will look at employment issues. As a government, we have worked hard to improve conditions for aboriginal people. I am sure many of you are aware of the report on visible minorities and employment records in the public service. We should be hiring more aboriginal people to work in our parks. Although most of our parks tend to be clustered around areas where there are high numbers of aboriginal peoples, by and large their employment levels in our parks have been low. We are working on that. The legislation itself plays a role in that endeavour, as does the fact that we continually reinforce the partnership role that Parks Canada has to play. The co-management agreements that we signed in Nunavut, which will come to pass as a result of this bill and which were built on the Haida Gwaii template, will give us a wonderful model. We are making progress, but progress is not as fast as we would like it to be.
Senator Chalifoux: Talking about economic possibilities, your department approached the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples to do a study on development opportunities surrounding the 10 parks in the Northwest Territories. I am happy to say that a budget has been approved and the study will soon begin. We should have our report ready by December 15. That is an area where we can work together.
Turning now to historical sites, I would remind you that in Jasper National Park there is a grave site and a settlement within the park that has neither been taken care of nor acknowledged. It was a Metis settlement. Perhaps the round table would consider that situation.
Senator Kenny: I would start by asking if either you or one of your officials could outline for the committee what your budget has been like for the last decade.
Ms Copps: Too low.
Senator Kenny: We all agree on that, but perhaps someone could lay out the figures for us over the last decade.
Ms Copps: Grosso modo, there has been a 25 per cent cut in the Parks Canada budget, and the current operating budget is $350 million.
Senator Kenny: This leads to my principal concern. In my time in the Senate, I have seen several ministers responsible for parks come to this committee and talk with some pride of creating new parks. At the same time, I have watched a diminution of resources going into those parks. At what point will the government square the circle? When will we start funding the parks that we are creating and when will we fund them in a way that is consistent with the value that we all seem to attach to them?
Ms Copps: The budget cuts that were inflicted on the Parks Canada budget were fairly shared across the board. If you go through the period of program review and the difficult times experienced by departments, we had budgetary cuts ranging between 25 per cent and 60 per cent in many government departments. Parks Canada was actually on the low end of the scale in terms of cuts.
Having turned the corner, I am happy to hear you say that, Senator Kenny, because I have been making strong representations, as has the Prime Minister in the last number of months, for an increase in the parks budget precisely because it is also one area of exclusive federal jurisdiction where we are the trustees. If we are growing the parks system -- and we have had two electoral commitments to complete the parks system -- then if you do not grow the pot, the capacity to support every park will be diminished. We are working now to have input into the budgetary process in February. We hope some resource support will be given to Parks Canada.
You may not have heard this story, but when I became the minister responsible for parks the Prime Minister said that the best job he ever had was when he was minister responsible for Indian affairs and parks together. In fact, he added more national parks than any other minister before or since. I think he holds it very special. I am working very hard to ensure that this is expressed in the upcoming budget, and you can help.
Senator Kenny: That is precisely the point. Ministers come along and they more or less notch their belts. The Prime Minister does this, too. He has a lot of notches on his belt for all the parks he created. By the same token, why not describe to the committee what has been harmed? What have you lost as we have grown the system?
Ms Copps: I would like to put it in a slightly different way. For nearly the last five years in Parks Canada, we have been working hard to create an interconnectedness among parks. When I became minister, I was surprised to see that each park operated as its own little world. There was strong support for superintendents to do the physical work of setting up transportation links, cutting the grass in domesticated areas, and shovelling the snow, but there was no interconnection on the best practices in parks or science.
The area of marine heritage is fairly new. We have six marine areas and I have been encouraging the department to interconnect the scientific knowledge. The people in the Pacific Rim National Park in British Columbia should be talking to the people in the Saguenay about beluga regeneration, fish habitat, et cetera. That is one area in which we have been able to build a more cost-effective interconnection.
We sent five experts to Banff, including urban planners, geographers, and municipal leaders. We learned that Banff had never been studied as an ecosystem. Rather than recreating the Banff-Bow Valley study, which was relatively expensive, we adapted that template to all the other parks, and that has become the Panel on Ecological Integrity. From that, we will draw some science support that can be interspersed among all parks.
Take, for example, the proposal for Yellowstone to Yukon, in terms of wildlife corridors. You may have 12 separate mountain parks, but they are still interconnected. We need to build on the interconnections, which is more cost effective than having 12 superintendents in 12 areas doing 12 things at 12 ratios. It has forced us to be more interconnected.
At the same time, we really need support for science-based capacity. To use a mining analogy, Banff was the canary in the mine. It was our wake-up call. UNESCO said that Banff would be delisted as a world heritage site if we did not get our act together. Most of the other parks have not reached that stage, but if we do not put a template together, it could happen.
Senator Kenny: I hear and understand what you are saying. However, I am not sure that you are hearing what I am saying. No one around this table would object to the creation of new parks or to the land being set aside. However, someone in the department must be telling you that if we are to create new parks we will have to cut back in other places. Unless you are prepared to describe for this committee in some detail what the cutbacks have been and what you have lost as time has gone by, you will not get the political support you are looking for. With respect, you must explain publicly what is missing every time you add another acre to the system and do not add dollars to support and protect it.
Ms Copps: We added fees. When I became the minister, we did not have fees. I believed that if people were willing to pay close to $10 to see a movie they would not object to paying to go into national parks. As a result, we have generated revenues. We created a special agency with a mandate to ensure that revenue generated does not go back into the general treasury of the government but rather into parks and parks sustenance.
There has been approximately a 40 per cent increase in visits to historic sites over the last four years. There is a great interest. I have stated to my colleagues, and I have been supported by the Prime Minister, that in the next budget process I will be looking for a significant reinvestment into Canada's national parks.
As in every portfolio, there are many different pieces to the puzzle. One of the messages received from the Panel on Ecological Integrity is that money reinvested without a template will not be well spent. We need a template, and this is it.
To merely invest money in the physical plant of the park without scientific and ecological integrity will not fulfil the message we received from the Gérin panel. That panel told us that we need to put science first. We now have no way of analyzing where science is first. We must not establish parks without the scientific analysis of how to respect the ecosystem and protect the caribou herds and the wildlife corridors. It was their message that we must put the template in place and then make the reinvestment. I will put Bill C-27 forward as a template to persuade my colleagues that we will be legitimately reinvesting in a science-based field that will last forever.
Senator Kenny: I do not expect you to answer this question tonight, but perhaps you could undertake to provide the committee with the information. How many acres have been added to the system in the last decade and how many dollars have been removed from it? My point is that you cannot cut your budget by one third without the system hurting.
You are telling Parliament that you will do it in a better and smarter way, that you are adding to your trusteeship, but doing so with 35 per cent less money. It would be useful for the committee to have some understanding of what disappeared when the 35 per cent of the funding went. What did we miss? When you add more acres, what else will be missing?
Ms Copps: I wish to underscore that our revenues have doubled from $35 million to $72 million and we have cut overhead. We have reduced the number of regional offices. In many cases, we eliminated regional offices that were attached to Canadian Heritage. We have slowed down the development of new parks. We will not meet our year 2000 target, because in order for legislation for new parks to be implemented it must be funded. If it is not funded, we do not proceed.
For example, the annual operating budget for Sirmilik is about $2 million of a budget of $350 million. The bigger question is how you deal with the overall scientific approach. The Inuit people set aside significant monetary potential in mining and other development because they wanted to have the lands forever. These are very wild lands that do not require the amount of investment in infrastructure that is required in Banff, for example. In Banff, the biggest infrastructure cost is the highway. We pave the highway through the national park, which is a very expensive proposition. That is a cost associated with having a national park. Much of the investment has been in bricks and mortar as opposed to safeguarding nature.
The Panel on Ecological Integrity is saying that we must put in place the framework to safeguard nature and then reinvest. If the reinvestment is merely going into bricks and mortar, we are not acting on the message from Banff, which was that we must stop unreasonable expansion of bricks and mortar and refocus on the national parks mandate, which is the saving of natural spaces. That is what the panel is recommending and that is why it has said ecological integrity first and money later.
Senator Adams: Welcome, minister. This bill is easier for me than Bill C-38, which we were studying the last time we met with you. That bill was for Tuktut Nogait Park, and I had a little difficulty with the mining company issues.
As Madam Chair mentioned, about four years ago, when Senator Carney was chair, we toured Grasslands Park. At that time, we were not sure if it would go ahead. Quite a few aboriginal people are working in that park now, but there were concerns about not having enough property for the heritage sites. Some of the people who lived there were wondering if they should look after things themselves or turn it over to Parks Canada. It now sounds as though that area will be expanded as a national park; is that correct?
Ms Copps: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Adams: In the meantime, a lot of cattle are being raised there and they are using a lot of the land. Do you have enough land now? How were the issues settled between the people and the park?
Mr. Bruce Amos, Director General, National Parks, Canadian Heritage: Senator, we now have acquired interest in more than 50 per cent of the land that was the subject of the federal-provincial agreement. The outstanding third-party interests have been resolved, and with the strong support of the province in particular we feel we are now ready to move ahead and add more area to the National Parks Act.
Not all the lands in the agreed outer area are included. Some land is still either owned by third parties or is subject to lease for grazing.
When there are private interests in potential national park areas, our intention is always to acquire the lands as they become available on a willing-seller/willing-buyer basis. People know that Parks Canada is there to buy the lands. The terms of acquisition are set out in the federal-provincial agreement. Over time, it is hoped that those additional lands will be added to the park in the way set out by the act.
We have significant sections of land in both the east and west blocks. We feel it is time to move ahead and bring the land under the National Parks Act.
Senator Adams: I do not really want to discuss Banff but my colleague, Senator Taylor, is from that area and is concerned about that park. Three or four years ago, there was an announcement about freeing up more room for development by the people in the community. I think the mayor at the time was asking for a population of 20,000 where it is now no more than 10,000. Of course, the park attracts far more tourists than that and it must be a money-maker. How are you making out with Banff?
Ms Copps: The provincial Minister of Economic Development in Alberta published a study recently that showed that Banff brings $200 million into the Alberta economy. That is a good analysis of the benefit of having a world heritage site. That being said, I must respect the world heritage nature of the site.
We came in with the Banff template. The current permanent population of Banff is 7,500. The permanent plan permits a 25-per-cent increase in the total permanent population to 10,000 people. One of the motivations for this legislation is the pressure put on ministers over the years. I do not know how many of you visited Banff in the 1960s and 1970s.
Senator Banks: How about the 1950s or the 1940s?
Ms Copps: Compare Banff today to the way it was 20 years ago. When there is no legislated town plan, the plan is subject to approval by the minister. Every minister, regardless of political party, regardless of stripe, regardless of ecological support, is consistently encouraged to accept more development. Any minister would want to support both the ecological and the economic development of the community.
Continued unfettered development of the nature we have seen over the last 20 years would kill Banff. In fact, UNESCO told us that we had a couple of years to get it back on track or they would de-list it. That would have meant a major black eye and a dent in the $200 million currently being pumped into the Alberta economy annually by people who want to see a world heritage site, not to mention the ecological damage that would have been caused.
In developing the template, we had a thorough look at all the environmental issues. We were trying to approach them in a reasonable way, but bear in mind that, if this legislation passes, the plans become part of the law. If the plans are changed, it will not be changed by a minister cutting a deal in a backroom with an individual who has a commercial interest. Changes will be made by Parliament.
I wanted to bring the bill forward because I know how tough it has been. It is tough to say no. It is easier to say yes, but if a new minister arrives every five years and says yes to one more hotel or one more highrise or one more development, then, at the end of the day, there is no park left.
The message we want to send is that, in the long term, there is plenty of space for good economic development on the peripheries of national parks. Gros Morne was established in 1970 and it is a case in point. There is a town site outside that park and the limitations placed upon that town are strictly locally controlled. When the town site sits inside a national park, there is incredible support from the population as well as an incredible trusteeship to keep the place whole.
That is why it is important that we legislate town plans. When I imposed the town plan, I took advice and came in with a template that extrapolated the best advice from various quarters. We asked what we could do. Would a 25-per-cent increase in the population of Banff be supportable? We said yes. Would a 125-per-cent increase be supportable? We said no.
The plan became my plan. In this legislation, any new plan will become the plan of Parliament. If I am gone, no other minister can have a backroom deal. If the plan should be changed, Parliament will decide. If there is a good case to be made for additional development, the case is made to the public in Parliament and not behind closed doors. Historically, the ministerial process governed changes and things were chipped away, bit by bit. This gives the system greater certainty in the long term.
Senator Adams: There are two or three more parks coming into existence in Nunavut. Mr. Amos knows about them, and I know he is concerned about everything. Right now, we have people on the board from the communities. We worked on some laws concerning exploration by the mining companies, and we learned a lesson with Bill C-38. Right now we want to ensure that the native people have some say with regard to mining. It is difficult, after the bill is passed and signed, because we only have 90 days to make up our minds. With the Tuktut Nogait Park, it was the same.
That is my concern right now. On our study of Bill C-38, we heard from the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Corporation. We have 136,000 square kilometres of designated park area in Nunavut. How many more acres will you be setting aside? Right now, no one can go to the parks in Nunavut because of the expense to travel there.
My concern is that you do not create the parks until you consult some of these mining companies to find out if there is anything there in the future. Perhaps Senator Taylor can tell us something about that.
Senator Taylor: There is always something there.
Senator Adams: That is my concern. I think we must work together with the community on the boundaries. Is the park coming into existence sometime in the near future?
Mr. Amos: The negotiations with the Keewatin Inuit Association, KIA, are going extremely well. The basis for an agreement has been worked out between negotiators on behalf of the minister and the Inuit. Yes, it is moving along well, and all the issues that you mention have been fully part of the discussions and the negotiations. The concerns you mentioned are those shared by Inuit communities and their representatives. We have been in open discussions with them and we are confident that we are close to having an arrangement that the minister can sign.
Senator Adams: Is it the same thing with mining exploration? I talked to a mining company and they told me that at one time there were 200 kilometres of future mining sites around that area.
Ms Copps: One of the issues of discussion has been around road access for future mining development, and that has been part of the discussion.
Senator Rossiter: Minister Copps, I would like to follow up on Senator Bank's opening question in regard to clauses 7 and 34, the limit on times for debate. It was removed in one case, in clause 7, but not in clause 34. It seems to me that the rules in both places provide for allocation of time and if there is to be a strict allocation of time then there is closure. There is nothing in legislation that limits time for debate. Why was it taken out in one place and not in the other?
Ms Copps: Before this bill came along, Parliament was never even engaged in the management plans for parks. In the past, the management plans would come in, they would be submitted to the minister, the minister would approve them or not, and they would never be subject to the approval of Parliament. The establishment of parks was always subject to Parliament, and we had to bring in a piece of legislation every time we established a park. In the case of Gros Morne, that park was established in 1970 and we have never put the legal framework in place.
Senator Rossiter: That is not what I am talking about, Ms Copps.
Ms Copps: Clause 7 deals with the establishment of parks. You are talking about clause 7 and clause 34.
Senator Rossiter: Yes, but I am just talking about clause 34(2).
Ms Copps: Clause 7 currently deals with the establishment of new parks; historically, that was dealt with by individual legislation. When we looked at the way this package was framed, because clause 34 deals with the management plans, which are ongoing and which will be reintroduced every couple of years, it is not like establishing the boundaries of a park that will be there forever; they are basically the management plans to run the community organizations in the parks. Those are of a limited nature and therefore time-limited discussions were never an issue.
In the case of clause 7, when the parliamentary committee identified that as a deficiency, we agreed that they were right and so made the change. The two clauses are not comparable because before this proposed legislation the Banff and other management plans only go to the minister. They never go to Parliament. Having brought them to Parliament, and given that there are management plans for every single park, and given that the process of reviewing those management plans will be rather extensive, we thought it reasonable to assume that it could be done in a certain period. We did not feel it was reasonable to have any limitations on the establishment of new parks, which is a more permanent legislative solution and therefore should have no limitations. Clause 34 is only about tabling the community plans, which will be tabled on an ongoing basis.
Senator Rossiter: This is rather strange. This evening, in the chamber, Senator Taylor cited the instances in recent years of diminution of the powers of the Senate.
Senator Taylor: That was the Senate being brought in on the discussion, but I am not sure this is a parliamentary committee.
Senator Rossiter: They are all parliamentary committees. I am asking about time allocation. I am talking about the limitation of time for debate, I am not talking about the subject matter at all.
Ms Copps: For normal regulations that are gazetted, there is a time limitation. After you gazette a regulation, it becomes a law after 30 days or 60 days, which is fairly standard practice. With the community plans, because they are not creating new rights but rather establishing the operations of communities within parks and are subject to change, we thought it was a legitimate differentiation between that and the establishment of national parks to have one that can be debated within a certain time frame and one that cannot. If you look at Governor-in-Council appointments, for example, they can be brought before any standing committee of the House or the Senate, I believe, but it must be done within 30 days. Beyond the 30-day sitting period, that right lapses. That is something that is established in other pieces of legislation where you will have time limitations in certain areas and not others. We did not think it was a legitimate limitation of time to have limitation on debate for the establishment of a park.
Senator Banks: Senator Rossiter, I would argue with you that in clause 7 the limitation on debate is very reasonable. It is the 30 days, but it is 30 sitting days.
Senator Rossiter: Senator Banks, you are looking at the amended bill. Before the bill was amended, there was a clause similar to 34(3) which stated, "the motion shall be debated for not more than three hours," but it was eliminated from clause 7. Three hours of debate is three hours of debate. Whatever the subject is, it does not matter.
Senator Banks: The difference, however, is in the nature and weight of the subjects. In clause 7, what is being dealt with is what would previously have been a new act of Parliament, a separate act of Parliament.
In clause 34, what is being dealt with is, for all intents and purposes, a regulation. It is not normal in legislation that when ministerial prerogatives are granted in the legislation that the Senate and the House of Commons retain control over regulations that will be made under that. This is adding a level of control.
Senator Rossiter: Regulations are made under an act. The act is one thing. The regulations are another. What I am talking about is the time limit on debate, not the subject matter.
Senator Banks: But you are referring to the three-hour time limit.
Senator Rossiter: I am referring to any time limit on debate. There is provision in the rules of both Houses for time limits on debates, but it is not in legislation.
The Chairman: This has been discussed. I understand your point of view. We need to go on, if you do not mind.
Senator Taylor: As deputy chair, I have been trying to arrange a number of meetings with you.
The Town of Banff is the only town or city allowed to manage itself within a national park. Perhaps you could refresh my memory why that is.
Second, how will this legislation affect that town's future life? You have already said that you have put restrictions in place. What does this legislation do to the citizens of Banff and the Town of Banff that it did not do before? Why does Banff get the right to manage itself while Jasper does not?
Ms Copps: The agreement signed between the Town of Banff and the Government of Canada in 1990 is still current and forms part of the laws. It will be respected.
The difference between the establishment of the act for the Town of Banff and the community of Jasper, for example, is that Jasper sought to have other kinds of arrangements and authorities. We have attempted to respect the fact that of the seven communities that are within national park boundaries six have special arrangements, and the Town of Banff Incorporation Act is unique in the nature of its size and development.
What will change for the Town of Banff with this legislation is that when we make a decision around the town plan it must be submitted to Parliament and approved by Parliament. At the moment, the Town of Banff plan was strictly a prerogative of the minister, with no parliamentary review or input.
Senator Taylor: Does that go as far as to, say, service station sites?
Ms Copps: The town plan itself is down to every site, so that would be approved by Parliament.
Senator Taylor: My next question is entirely different from my first. Nowadays, we are slaves to the market economy; anything that is privatized is a great thing, we think. I am not suggesting that we privatize parks. Towns and cities have increased their budgets substantially in areas such as zoos. Again, I do not say a park is a zoo. I do not want to go by Mount Lougheed and see a big sign that reads, "Brought to you by General Motors."
Have you explored the opportunity of sponsorship from donors, preferably large ones, to small, discrete types of things?
Ms Copps: At the moment, what we have tried to do in each park area is encourage local partnerships. Surprisingly, between 25 per cent and 30 per cent of the services developed in all our national parks are actually contracted out. They are not necessarily all done by the employees themselves.
The rate will vary, according to the park and access to contractual labour. However, you will find that in most parts of the country, especially in rural and remote areas, Parks Canada tends to be one of the major employers and contracting employers, which is one of the reasons we are working hard to have more aboriginal employment.
In terms of the overall foundation, Senator Kenny asked a question about budgets. One of the things we looked at in the lead-up to the last budget, and one of the things that we will be exploring leading into the next one, is the possibility of not just ongoing funding but the establishment of a foundation similar to what you might see with the Innovations Foundation.
The intention of a foundation would not be to have necessarily corporate donors looking to place their logos. These parks are our national treasures. They are for everybody.
Senator Taylor: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have hired Disney.
Ms Copps: One of the models that we are looking at for more support is the creation of a national foundation for parks, which would permit Canadians to make philanthropic donations to parks managed through a national foundation. The national foundation would be able to receive major donations from estates and individuals.
Senator Taylor: The UK does that now.
Ms Copps: We have done a lot of legwork on this, and it is one of the options we will be looking at for future funding. The intention of ongoing funding, as opposed to foundation funding, is that if the government is the first to the bat at a foundation we may see that other individuals and other partners will also be willing to participate. We have done quite a bit of the legwork on how that might operate.
To that end, the establishment of the special operating authority for Parks Canada was important because it creates an integrated financial system where they can create a foundation and see the money go back into Parks Canada as opposed to back into general revenues.
Senator Cochrane: I have a question regarding clause 11 of the bill. It deals with the management plans. Clause 11 states:
The Minister shall, within five years after a park is established, prepare a management plan for the park containing a long-term ecological vision for the park, a set of ecological integrity objectives and indicators and provisions for resource protection and restoration, zoning, visitor use, public awareness and performance evaluation, which shall be tabled in each House of Parliament.
My question is in regard to "within five years after a park is established." Gros Morne has been established since 1970. Are we to wait another five years before we see a management plan?
Ms Copps: We have had management plans throughout, the difference being that they have never been tabled in Parliament. In fact, up until this point, I approved the management plans with no parliamentary input. We are bringing into this legislation a framework to say that the plans not only must be approved by the minister but must be tabled in Parliament.
Senator Cochrane: When will we see a management plan for Gros Morne National Park?
Ms Copps: The work is underway now. If the legislation is passed, that will be part of it.
Senator Cochrane: We do not have to wait very long to see it?
Ms Copps: I hope not.
Senator Cochrane: Can you give me a time frame?
Ms Copps: If you pass the bill tomorrow, you will see it by September.
Those of us who were around for the precursor to this legislation will know that I am not being facetious when I say that this is very important legislation. Every day that we delay is a day that endangered species and ecological integrity are at risk. That is why we would like to see this legislation passed. I am sorry that it is coming to you as late as it is. It is probably one of the few bills in the last Parliament that was supported by all parties. The new Alliance party did not support the bill but agreed to put up only one speaker. They wanted the bill to move through the House. As I said, they did not support the bill but they agreed that they would not oppose it by introducing a great number of speakers. There was only one speaker on the bill. If you go through the committee work, you will see that almost all of the amendments were accepted unanimously, so it really was a collaborative effort.
Unfortunately, in this place, as in the other place, attention often tends to get focused on bills where there is controversy. When a bill receives general support, it tends to not get the speed of attention that it might. Here is an opportunity for all the parties to give it the speed and the attention that it deserves. That is my last sales pitch.
Senator Cochrane: How do the provisions within this legislative process provide for some parliamentary oversight in the establishment of new parks? I do not have to tell you about parliamentary oversight, because it happens. What happens if something is left out? What happens if there are no provisions made for municipalities to have some input and things of that nature?
Ms Copps: One of the benefits in establishing new parks is that, by and large, we are able to deal with the issues of communities in the development of the boundaries. For example, the community in Gros Morne is outside the park. You know the challenges that are faced with expansion when the community is in the park. You know the obvious balance between development and park. That balance is not at risk in the development of new parks because by and large the municipal boundaries tend to be outside the parks, and we do that deliberately. That problem will not arise with respect to Gros Morne because it is outside the park. I suppose for Gros Morne the proposed legislation will permit it to be legal -- because at the moment it has never been challenged, but it has never been enacted.
Senator Cochrane: I know that, minister. Actually, when the parliamentary secretary was before us we were reassured that it would be passed rather quickly, and that was a few years ago now, minister.
You mention that, of the $350 million, part of the cost is in keeping up the highways within the parks. Do you agree with that?
Ms Copps: The infrastructure of a park is the responsibility of the national government. When you take over the land mass, you do not take over just the good parts. You take over the challenges as well. In fact, in the infrastructure budget of the Minister of Transport, Parks Canada will be getting some additional investments, literally in the next few months, to support some of the road repairs that need to be made. That is outside the normal budget of the parks but is coming out of the infrastructure budget.
In a sense, it is our responsibility. It is also a legitimate trade-off, because if you look at most communities located inside parks, they do not have the same rights of representation as people outside the parks do. At the same time, they should not have to bear the financial burden of no taxation without representation, if I can put it that way. Some of the investment actually is a good balance for the fact that they do not have the same by-law development rights as you would if you were living outside a park.
Senator Cochrane: I am happy to hear you say that, and I am glad it is on the record that you support it.
My concern is where there has been such a reduction in funding. The upkeep of the highways is such an expensive part of any infrastructure. My worry is that some of our highways will just deteriorate if there is no more funding there. I do not have to tell you what paving and things of that nature cost. You say we may get more funding, but you still do not have that funding allocated. My worry is that there will be a deterioration of the highway system within our national parks. That would be tragic, because we have so many tourists going back and forth. All these things do add to the beauty and attraction of our parks.
Ms Copps: I think you are absolutely right, which is one of the reasons that, in the last budget, there was a certain amount of funding set aside for infrastructure support for existing federal institutions. Part of that will actually go to support the roads in Canada's parks, for precisely those reasons. That is for immediate repairs that need to be made in parts of the country.
Mr. Amos can probably give you the numbers, but we just had a committee on the amounts that will be allocated to Parks Canada. I think they will give us the flexibility that we need to make the repairs we need, but they are not part of the long-term budget process, which has to come out in the budget next year. One of the models we are looking at is a foundation, and the other is annual increments. Those decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in terms of how they would like to approach it. Certainly, the Prime Minister has already expressed his support for increasing the funding to Canada's national parks, which is one of the commitments that I know he wants brought into the budget discussion process that we are undertaking right now.
Senator Cochrane: I am looking forward to that.
The Chairman: The minister must leave at 10:00, and I have three people who wish to ask questions. I would ask you to limit your questions to one.
Senator Kenny: I did not get an answer to my earlier question. Can we be provided with a document that indicates where the services have been cut back, given that the funding has been cut back?
Ms Copps: I am sure Mr. Amos can provide that to you. All of that information is available in the information that we table in public accounts for the department, but we can give you specifics. I think I explained that we got rid of our regional offices.
Senator Kenny: A document would be great. My question is really more of a personal nature, minister. Where do ski hills and golf courses fit in with ecological integrity, and how do you see them? I am thinking obviously of the two large western parks, Lake Louise and Sunshine, Norquay, the CP golf courses. How do they fit in?
Ms Copps: The CP gave up its golf course.
Senator Kenny: It gave up the expansion. It still has the golf course.
Ms Copps: I thought the fact that it gave up the expansion was a significant contribution to ecological integrity. The message I sent to the ski hill operators, the golf courses, et cetera, is that we want to work with you to make your businesses as viable as possible, without encroaching in new natural territories. For those who are not here, please do your development outside the park. We think that is a reasonable approach, because if there is an existing golf course, it is difficult to dislocate it.
Senator Kenny: That is really my question. Have you considered expropriating the three ski hills, for example, in Banff?
Ms Copps: No.
Senator Kenny: Why?
Ms Copps: I believe one of the successes of the national parks has been partnership and non-expropriation.
My father was a municipal politician, and I know that expropriation is probably one of the most divisive ways of achieving community consensus. If people think that I am a hard-nose in Banff, they have to get hold of you, Senator Kenny. Go back to the Bow Valley report. To put this in context, I read a lot in the Calgary Herald about how tough I am. The Bow Valley report made certain recommendations about tearing down Timberline and coming in and raising this and that. I said, "Let's be reasonable. Let us repatriate what we can."
We repatriated the cadet camp, for which I still bear the scars, and that was something that could be repatriated without significant commercial loss to the community, and also in a very nice place close to the park. We repatriated future development, which is why I made the comment about the Canadian Pacific golf course. Canadian Pacific had an approval for a golf course but they rescinded it, as a measure of good faith to the execution of this overall plan. Everyone put a bit of water in their wine, and what you have is a plan that works.
There are detractors on both sides who feel that the plan is either too environmental or too developmental. We feel there is a balance. Had we gone in and expropriated, they would have been upset at more than the Lucy Maude Montgomery statue.
Senator Kenny: In terms of Sunshine, the owner would be happy to be expropriated, if he got a fair price for it. He wants a destination resort, and he cannot have it. He is in a position where he cannot go forward or backward. He says he does not have a complete resort that will function. The alternative is to buy him out.
The Chairman: These are important issues and we are deeply involved in them. We might decide as a committee to revisit the whole parks question, given that there are all these new things coming up.
Senator Taylor: As a piece of advice, do not read the Calgary Herald. It will rot your mind.
Is it your department or the Department of the Environment that controls the so-called underwater parks off the West Coast? After an oil spill in California years ago, all oil development between Alaska and the U.S. border was shut down and an underwater park was declared, which to me is a great mystery because oil is at $30 a barrel, and it could be developed, as we have seen in the North Sea, Holland and elsewhere, without ecological damage. Is that underwater park yours?
Ms Copps: We established the marine protected areas, but oil spills legislation actually falls under the Department of the Environment.
Senator Taylor: I was talking about development, drilling for oil out in the ocean as they do off Nova Scotia. They are not allowed to do that off British Columbia.
Ms Copps: There is a moratorium in some areas, but that is not under our jurisdiction. I think the Department of Fisheries is responsible for the ocean beds.
The Chairman: I would love to have delved into the question of the Alaska reserve, because that is another problem, but please proceed, Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: I agree that we have to find a balance. Development is important, but as I said earlier I remember when Banff consisted of a store and a drugstore, and it was great. I appreciate the balance between the two.
The issue I want to ask you about relates to a small amount of money, by comparison, but it received a lot of ink. I am often asked about it, and I am curious about it. I should like to have the minister on the record to comment briefly. We are obviously short of money, and I appreciate ecological integrity, but I was extremely curious about the rationale involved in changing the nature of the gardens in front of the Chateau Lake Louise and in killing all the fish in the moraine lake in order to replace them with other fish because the ones that were there were not indigenous. Given the things that we have to do, how important were those things on a scale of 1 to 10?
Ms Copps: To be honest with you, I read about those in the paper.
Senator Banks: They have happened.
Ms Copps: I understand, but I think there is somehow an interpretation that I make decisions on what flowers are planted. I would love to get into that level of detail, but I leave it to the scientists.
The Bow Valley study said that in certain areas we are losing species because we have broken the ecological balance and it asked about how to restore the balance. You send scientists in and they look at these things. Perhaps what they looked at -- and I am speaking as an amateur gardener -- is instead of planting annuals, which costs money, the answer is in restoring the habitat, that is, the original plant life, and in hoping that it might build synergies with the other natural habitat. Those are all decisions made by scientists.
It is like the question of the interpretative centre in Banff. We have incredible people whose job it is to develop interpretation. I do not pick statues, I do not make buildings. We give the overall guidelines and then they move forward. I believe that those decisions were made on recommendations from botanists and biologists about how to restore the balance.
Mr. Amos: In some cases, they are decisions made more in Calgary Herald news stories than in reality.
Senator Banks: I appreciate that, but the fact is that money has been spent, with three zeroes on the end of it, and fish have been killed. I am wondering if that is really important in the scheme of things.
Mr. Amos: Senator, in the lake that is under discussion, no specific action has been taken. We have highlighted the issue. It certainly came from the ecological integrity panel as well.
You may have read other articles, where noted scientists are saying that some of the most degraded ecosystems in Canada, particularly in our national parks, are the aquatic systems. It is partly because we have dammed them and partly because historically we have stocked the rivers and lakes in national parks with non-native species. Scientific work is underway to identify what possible actions might be taken, in a particular case, to try to restore a natural population of bull trout. There were some rather sensational stories about activities that Parks Canada purportedly planned to take. None of those has been taken. Several things were under discussion, and we have been at some pains to work with the media and with other interest groups to ensure that the facts are clear on that.
Yes, it is a concern. If there is any change in the flowers at Chateau Lake Louise, that decision will be made by the leaseholder, which is CP Hotels.
Are we encouraging our partners like those hotels to consider natural vegetation as an alternative? Yes, we are. Are we forcing them to do it or spending public funds to make it happen? No, we are not.
Ms Copps: Senator Banks, on that point, I probably read the same articles that you did because one was an incredibly sensationalistic article saying that we were going to limit the amount of water used for showers. What was actually being recommended, in the interest of water conservation, was to have a system that is often found in public buildings, where you actually have to press a button, you get a certain amount of water, and then you press again. You have unlimited water but you have to replenish it.
What we are trying to do makes a lot of sense. If you are in a national park, as well as embracing the ecosystem that is there, you can learn to live more in harmony with it. It is also a good message to send to visitors that water, for example, as we found from Walkerton, is not always in unlimited supply and that we should cherish it. All they were suggesting was that you put in a time-limited shower that you could repeat.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam Minister, for coming on such short notice.
We will do our best with this bill. I am not sure what the next course of action will be.
The committee adjourned.