HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 1539

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is now in session. This meeting is to resume consideration of Bill C-27, The Canada National Parks Act.

• 1540

This is our second round table. The first was held this morning. This afternoon our witnesses are the Havre-Saint-Pierre and Longue-Pointe-de-Mingan citizens' committee, represented by Yves Thériault and Rhéal Jomphe; the Hunting and Fishing Association, represented by Denis Boudreau and Pierre Parisé; and the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, represented by Kevin Psutka.

We will begin with Mr. Thériault and Mr. Jomphe. I don't know which of you would like to speak first.

Mr. Yves Thériault (Havre-Saint-Pierre and Longue-Pointe-de- Mingan Citizens' Committee): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we are happy to be here today to speak on a subject that interests us all, the Canada National Parks Bill. But before we talk specifically about the bill, we would like to take a few moments to tell you where we come from, who we are, and how we live.

We represent a substantial majority of the citizens of Longue- Pointe-de-Mingan and Havre-Saint-Pierre. These are two municipalities located in the Mingan area, along the North Shore of the St. Lawrence Gulf, across from Anticosti Island. Havre Saint- Pierre is 1,350 kilometres away from Ottawa, the capital of Canada. To come here, we left at 5 a.m., began the trip by plane, and finished by road.

In the Mingan, many villages were established along the shore by people from the Magdalen Islands or the Gaspé. These communities represent 150 years of history, 150 years of dealing with nature and a harsh climate, by those who wanted to stay.

Mingan is a large but not highly populated area. Its inhabitants, however, have some special qualities. A few kilometres across from the shore, there is a string of islands that provide shelter, resources and recreation. These islands are loved and used, but have also been preserved by previous generations. They have provided wood for heating, grazing land, food, game and wild fruit. They were also ideal for family picnics. It seemed their owners did not like the area, because we never saw them. The islands had become so much ours that some families even built cottages there.

Parks Canada has broken that relationship between the islands and ourselves, between the sea and ourselves. Of course, Parks Canada has built infrastructures required to welcome tourists on some of the islands, and that is a good thing. The park is open four months a year, but we are here every day of the year.

The Mingan Archipelago is a string of some 40 islands, 2,000 islets, and reefs. It extends over approximately 125 kilometres along the North Shore.

Since establishing the park, Parks Canada has not always behaved properly towards us. There has been a lack of communication, people have been hounded and harassed on land and sea, while many seniors have received fines. These problems have been occurring every year for 15 years now.

We have been wondering whether the Canadian government could have so much contempt for us. Now that it has acquired almost all the islands, Parks Canada is telling us to run along and play elsewhere. We cannot accept that. We intend to do something about their attitude.

• 1545

Parks Canada officials who live somewhat closer to us have begun making some adjustments, which are all steps in the right direction. But they are unable to do as much as they would like to, because they come up against obstacles over which they have no control. That is probably where you can help. If we define the problems and you have the willingness to solve them, then clearly you also have the power to solve them.

The revision of the National Parks Act seems to us to be a golden opportunity to restore calm in our region. We do not have any legal training, but we have constructive suggestions to make so that Bill C-27 meets our local needs, while enabling Parks Canada to preserve the Mingan Archipelago Park Reserve for future generations.

We have only two amendments to propose, and we will conclude with a point concerning the meaning of one clause.

The first amendment concerns our traditional activities. We would ask you to amend clause 17, on page 11, by adding:

(e) the Mingan Archipelago Park Reserve;

So paragraph (e), on page 12, would become paragraph (f).

Clause 17 lists parks where traditional activities are recognized, and we would ask you to include the Mingan Archipelago Park Reserve in that clause. This amendment would enable us to come to an agreement with the Parks Canada authorities on how these activities could be carried out.

We should emphasize that the local inhabitants have always called for traditional activities to be recognized. A number of briefs were submitted in 1983 and 1986 to that effect.

It is hard for us to understand how the Government of Canada can devote so much effort to preserving rocks, plants and animals, on the one hand, and not care less about the disappearance of traditional activities, on the other. If you kill those traditions, you may have to pay actors in 20 years to bring those traditions back to life.

When tourists come to our area, they ask us how we make a living. Instinctively, we answer them in the past tense. We describe to them how we used to make our living.

We also find it hard to understand why the government is so willing to recognize traditional activities of Aboriginal people, at the same time that it is contributing to the disappearance of our traditional activities. After all, we live beside two Indian communities that carry on their traditions without interference every season.

The second amendment that we would propose deals with the description of the Mingan Archipelago. The description is given on pages 115 and 116 of Bill C-27. We would like you to add the clarification that the park boundaries "commence at a point on the ordinary high water mark of each island". You have an example of this on page 129, regarding Richardson Island, in a park reserve in British Columbia. This amendment is very important, since the confusion surrounding this is creating frustration and hesitation.

• 1550

The park boundaries need to be clearly defined. As we read the bill, we took pains to try to understand the role and duties of the park warden. Clause 18 is the first of six clauses setting out the park warden's duties, place of work and status.

We have to say that the peace officer status conferred on the park warden by this bill made us smile. Over the past 15 years, some of these employees have actually been responsible for creating conflict in our area. Do we really understand that person's role if we say that the park warden is responsible for enforcing the legislation and regulations and maintaining public order in the parks?

The bill states:

21.(1) A park warden [ ...] may [...] arrest without warrant any person whom the warden or officer finds committing an offence under this Act...

(2) A park warden may [...] arrest without warrant any person whom the warden finds committing an offence under any other Act in a park.

The park warden can take action outside the park if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Parks Act has been violated.

It is crucial for us to understand the role, duties and place of work of these officers. In our area, we have the Sûreté du Québec, the Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans officers, wildlife conservation officers and park wardens. Nonetheless, we still want to be able to go out in our boats on the sea to be able to find some peace and quiet.

We would like assurance that the National Parks Act will not allow park wardens to question people indiscriminately, in any place, without reason. That would be harassment.

In closing, we would like to emphasize the need to accept these changes that we are proposing; it is in your best interest. This is necessary in order to halt the divorce process that you started 15 years ago.

In the Mingan area, the tourist season lasts only a few months and we welcome the visitors who come to our part of the country. Parks Canada contributes to this in its own way, and we would like the government to support the work of this agency.

For our part, we do not accept being treated as visitors. We are demanding our place in this archipelago. By recognizing our traditional activities, and by working closely with the local people, Parks Canada will be able to give back to an entire population the role that it formally had, as steward of this Canadian jewel that is the Mingan Archipelago.

We cannot close our short presentation without officially issuing a heartfelt special invitation to Ms. Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, to ask her to come this summer to get a taste of the Mingan region and the Mingan Archipelago Park Reserve. Experiencing our region for herself will undoubtedly enrich her knowledge of Canada. This visit would also convince her of the harmful impact that federal cuts are having in a park that is just being set up.

We therefore tell her beforehand, welcome to our part of the country.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thériault. You have been very clear.

• 1555

Mr. Boudreau, before you begin, I want to say that there will be a vote in the House in 24 minutes. You may begin, Mr. Boudreau, but we will have to go to vote.

Mr. Yves Thériault: We are together.

The Chair: I see.

Mr. Yves Thériault: We are ready for any questions you may have.

The Chair: I did not realize that you were all together. I thought that we had two groups.

[English]

Mr. Psutka, would you like to...?

Mr. Kevin Psutka (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association): I am separate.

The Chair: I realize you're separate, yes, but maybe we could hear your brief and then take questions when we get back, because there's a vote in 24 minutes.

Mr. Kevin Psutka: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to keep to the agenda, that is, to begin directing our questions to the representatives of Mr. Thériault's group, because I have another meeting after the vote.

The Chair: Okay. I do not see any objections. This is a round table. The agenda indicated that it was a round table, but if that will accommodate you, I do not see any objections if committee members....

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No, no.

The Chair: Fair enough.

[English]

Mr. Mark, go ahead.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): You go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I thank my colleague for giving me the floor in his stead.

Your presentation was very interesting and your message was very clear. Could you go into greater detail on the traditional activities that you would like to see on the islands?

Mr. Yves Thériault: I'm sorry, but I am not sure how to address you. Honourable member, shall we say.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You may call me Suzanne.

Mr. Yves Thériault: Our grandparents practised a multitude of traditional activities; our parents had fewer. We have also abandoned some of them and, if the trend continues, our children will not practise any.

Our grandparents practised many traditional activities because they founded the country. It was a very rich country and resources were abundant. They used to cut wood, trap and hunt duck. They lived on the islands. They raised fox there. Some cultivated gardens. The islands were used as pasture for livestock.

All kinds of things took place on the islands, for example, the gathering of wild fruit. Why was this? Because the back country is flat, open land. There is swamp, there is tundra, there is cariboo moss.

The land to the north of Havre-Saint-Pierre is very thinly wooded; it is an arm of the nearby forest. No wood is cut there. People used to cut wood on the islands across the water. They waited until the water had frozen over. There were many activities.

But with the arrival of Fer et Titane, some activities decreased. We are keen on respecting the vocation of the park. There is not much hunting. Not many shots are fired in the park.

Many people have licences to hunt harbour seals, but during the tourist season, no one hunts them around the park because that would not make sense. We would like to conserve some traditional activities: picking wild berries, camping, picnics and setting snares for hares. These are all renewable resources. We have been doing that for 150 years. There have always been hares on the islands and wild berries reproduce. So it involves using the islands, but only taking renewable resources. We noticed that gathering renewable resources is allowed under the bill, and that is what we are asking for.

Everything regarding hunting, rifles, shotguns, as well as gathering wood. So the idea was to conserve the main resources, if I am not mistaken. Is that correct?

Mr. Denis Boudreau (Association Chasse et Pêche): Jackrabbit snares are very important, as Mr. Thériault explained, given our geographic location, especially in the fall.

• 1600

When we can get the snowmobiles out in December, it changes things a bit, but we are convinced that we can continue to snare hares in the park with the right regulations. We are aware that Quebec regulations would be necessary.

The Chair: Can you explain what you mean by snaring hares? Is it when they are caught by the neck?

Mr. Denis Boudreau: Yes, with a little wire snare. We do not cut the tree; we only use a little twig.

Traditional camping is also in high demand. As we explained, there were a number of cottages that had to be given up when the park was created. People were involved in a lot of activities on certain parts of the islands, and that is above all what people wanted. They wanted to take their little tent and do some wilderness camping to remind them of the good old days.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to ask you another question, because we might not have enough time to ask any more.

You also said that there were 40 islands and 200 or 2,000 islets and reefs.

Mr. Yves Thériault: Two thousand.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You say that you want to have access to the islands in the park. Do you want access to the 40 islands and the 2,000 islets and reefs, or have you targeted some of them to which you would want to have access?

Mr. Yves Thériault: That is what we are talking about. We want to talk to the park managers to agree on these aspects. Because we would like to maintain the beauty of the park. That is what we have always wanted.

At present, the officers in charge are telling us that they cannot discuss this with us because the Act prevents them from doing so. We want the legislator to tell these officers that they can do so. That way, when we meet with them, we will be able to say: "You can do so. Now, do you want to do so?" We will change that. We will see if they want to do so. If they do not want to, we will say that they can but they do not want to do so. There will undoubtedly be some negotiations. We are reasonable.

Last year, we wanted to try and deal with the situation and negotiate with Parks Canada to agree on access. We want to reduce the hunting season and limit the number of islands. That is all we are asking for.

I told you that elders had paid fines. Back home, at Christmas, making meat pies out of hares is traditional. Traditionally, we do not eat rabbits; back home, it is not very popular. Someone selling rabbits would go bankrupt. What we like is hare; we need some at Christmas. In the fall, hares are far away, and we do not have access roads. The only road is along the coast. Because there is no logging, there is no access road. Our only access is on the other side, a couple of kilometres away. We have proof: it was all elders who were caught and who paid fines. People back home are revolted by that.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Didn't Parks Canada start developing an island, not because it wants to let go of the territory but simply to allow the municipality of Havre-Saint-Pierre to use it? Did you hear anything about that?

Mr. Yves Thériault: No. The only thing I can see is cultural. There's an island where there's an old lighthouse. We were in negotiations with Parks Canada and that island, through the municipality, maybe will be used for cultural purposes to bring back the history of the old lighthouse days. Maybe it's that case.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There are no hares.

Mr. Yves Thériault: No.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There are no woods.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mark, and then we'll close after your question.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the committee.

I have one question on your request to meet with Parks Canada. Have they done this, and what is their attitude about meeting and negotiating some of these traditional practices you have?

• 1605

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Boudreau: For nine months now, we've been trying to have discussions with the representatives of Parks Canada. We're still in intensive meetings with the local authorities, with Mr. Tremblay, the director for the Quebec region.

We have tried to write out a document that could be appended to the present management plan. We'd like to find a few traditional activities, with conditions, of course. As the lady was saying before, we don't want this to apply to all the islands. We've gone part of the way. At this point, it's difficult to get the local management of the parks reserve to go with this kind of document.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Muise, do you have a question before we go?

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Well, if we're going to be pressed for time, I'll wait.

[Translation]

The Chair: We'll suspend the meeting for a while. We'll come back after the vote to wind up the question period and listen to Mr. Psutka's evidence.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: Maybe I'll just make a comment.

The Chair: Yes, all right.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Muise: You say that you want the traditional activities to be listed but you have to be mindful, as you've said yourself, that these traditional activities are quite different: snaring hares and camping. As that has changed, maybe the traditional activities you want to keep should be mentioned specifically.

An hon. member: I don't know.

Mr. Yves Thériault: That's what we intend to do. We think that's how it works. With Parks Canada, a management plan is drawn up every five years and reviewed every five years. It depends on how the situation evolves.

If we were 50,000 people, our language would change but there's only a handful of us with a 125-kilometre-long chain of islands, which means it's quite different.

The legislation allows the park director to manage his parks despite the fact that it is written that you can exercise traditional activities. That doesn't mean that the wording says that we have all the powers. You must understand us. We want to have the principle of the recognition of traditional activities written in to be able to sit down and negotiate. Presently, there are negotiations because they say our traditional activities aren't provided for in the legislation. Do you understand that?

Mr. Pierre Parisé (Association Chasse et Pêche): I can give you an example to answer your question and that's the Gros-Morne National Park in Rocky Harbour in Newfoundland.

According to the legislation, Gros-Morne is a park where recognized traditional activities are exercised. Amongst those recognized activities you can snare hare, but that's going to come to an end in a while.

We entirely agree with all the Parks Canada activities. It does happen that traditional activities come to an end and I think it's normal that, even today, we can practise certain activities. Tomorrow, things will change and we won't do it anymore. Time is going to put an end to all these things.

For example, at Gros-Morne, you can snare hare and cut wood. A lot is said about specifics. So this would be recognizing a traditional activity while allowing us to integrate it in our neck of the woods.

Mr. Yves Thériault: It is quite important. Parks Canada tells us that they tolerate a certain number of activities, which angers people. That makes us furious. We no longer want to be tolerated. We want it written in the legislation that we have the right to engage in our traditional activities. We want to negotiate with Parks Canada's authorities.

The Chair: Mr. Thériault, thank you. We are going to have to vote. We will return later to hear Mr. Psutka.

• 1609

• 1646

The Chair: We are resuming the session which was interrupted by a vote. We were in the process of asking questions of the representatives of Minganie. Go ahead.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): If I understood your brief correctly, it would seem that the arrival of Parks Canada has had a negative impact on the life of citizens of Minganie, in Havre-Saint-Pierre. You have even been prevented from carrying out certain traditional activities.

I would like you to tell me if there is a way for us to achieve peace and for the harassment to cease. Do you think that there could be some accommodation between Parks Canada and the people who live in the region 12 months per year?

You say that tourists come and go, but that you stay. It is legitimate for you to want to live a traditional type of lifestyle. In your opinion, is there any way to arrive at an acceptable agreement with Parks Canada which will make everybody happy and which would ensure that the locals and tourists can both benefit and that the economy can grow?

Mr. Denis Boudreau: Yes, we are convinced there is. We are not saying that the arrival of Parks Canada has totally devastated us. All that we are asking, is that you remember that there are citizens who carried out traditional activities before Parks Canada arrived on the scene. They welcomed Parks Canada. However, there are a certain number of promises that were made and which would have to be kept. But we are convinced that Parks Canada and the tourists can cohabit.

Mr. Real Jomphe (Citizens' Committee of Havre-Saint-Pierre and Longue-Pointe-de-Mingan): I believe that Parks Canada's officers caught the year 2000 bug because they did not go anywhere. They were made to stay. No one wanted them to leave.

You are talking about harmonization. We are willing to agree on several points with the director of Parks Canada. They should start to be in the field next week.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: In your document, you also indicated that Parks Canada's wardens instigate conflicts rather than maintaining peace. I would like you to elaborate on that.

Did they go so far as to aggressively intercept and bother citizens who, for example, were simply going out for a boat ride or licence holders who wanted to fish groundfish, or any other species, in peace and quiet? Could you elaborate? Are there specific cases? Does it happen a lot?

• 1650

Mr. Yves Thériault: Of course, we would not have put any of this in writing if there was no factual basis for it. We have several examples where park wardens have intervened to harass people. People were leaving Havre-Saint-Pierre with their family to go to Johan-Beetz bay by boat, and all of a sudden, they were intercepted by park wardens. We did not think that was normal.

In our area, people have what we call motorized canoes, which you have another designation for. And as soon as the park warden saw one of those, he went after it. If he saw a kayak, he said: "Oh well, that's a tourist". He would go the long way around in order not to disturb them, but as soon as he saw one of us, then he would rush out to make an inquiry, without any grounds.

Somebody had a scallop fishing licence. The park wardens wanted to see it. What relation is there between someone who has a permit to fish scallops and someone who is inside the boundaries of the park? We can't see one.

Mr. Real Jomphe: To our knowledge, nothing indicated in the legislation that this is a marine park. We were on the water. They were doing their work outside of the park, and yet we know that the legislation limits them to inside the park.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: May I ask a last question?

The Chair: Just a moment please.

There is going to be a vote at 5:30 p.m. So we will have to leave here at 5:20 p.m. at the latest.

Mr. Psutka must leave at 5:15 p.m. to catch a plane. Therefore, if you would allow me, we will hear his brief and then we will get back to questions.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Very well. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Psutka, I know you have to leave at 5:15, so if you could just carry on, give us your brief.

Mr. Kevin Psutka: Thank you. I appreciate that.

Honourable chair and members of the committee, I represent over 17,000 aircraft owners and pilots who use small aircraft for personal travel in Canada. I am here today to emphasize the need to protect the travelling public and in particular to ensure that their safety is not compromised when managing our national parks.

The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association recognizes the need to protect our environment and the beauty of our parks. That is why in general we are not opposed to restricting access to parks for aircraft. However, there are certain areas in Canada where it is necessary to provide for the safe passage of aircraft over parks. As an example, I refer to the long-standing effort of COPA to preserve the flyway over and into the airstrips in Banff and Jasper National Parks.

These airstrips lie under two vital air routes for small aircraft. Since they are unable to climb over the mountains, the valleys through the area provide the only routes to fly through the mountains within the capabilities of these aircraft, and consequently the routes are an important link in our national transportation network, just as are the highway and the railway passing through these parks. In fact, the airstrips were established in Banff and Jasper in the 1930s as reliever airstrips in case pilots ran into difficulties with weather.

In 1997 the parks regulations were changed to remove Banff and Jasper airstrips from the exemption status that they have enjoyed for many years. As you may know, the regulations prohibit landing in any national park unless it is a remote park. Of course Banff and Jasper are not remote. When the minister announced the closure of these airstrips, COPA successfully challenged the closures in court. To this day, they remain open for emergency and diversionary use pending a thorough environmental assessment. Sadly, the minister is intending to close these airstrips upon completion of the assessment. We believe that she just does not appreciate the safety importance of these airstrips.

In a similar manner, the minister has established a marine conservation park at the mouth of the Saguenay River and is in the process of establishing more marine conservation areas through the enactment of the marine conservation areas legislation. In these documents lies wording that would permit the minister to restrict overflights as well as landing in these areas.

While we appreciate the desire to protect our wildlife, there is a greater concern at stake, that of the travelling public. Just as with Banff and Jasper, the Saguenay park lies under a major flyway for aircraft traversing along the St. Lawrence, because hills and weather on either side of the St. Lawrence often preclude other routes. In addition, it's often necessary to traverse at a relatively low and safe, but legal, altitude in order to avoid the weather. We understand there will be other marine conservation areas established on the west coast under major routes used by small float aircraft to connect the many areas of British Columbia.

• 1655

Although there is wording to state that the minister will do so in consultation with the Minister of Transport, we are not convinced, based on the developments at Banff and Jasper, that the safety of the travelling public will be assured. In Banff, Jasper, the Saguenay, and many other areas proposed for marine conservation areas, pilots need the flexibility to traverse the areas at suitable altitudes for the given weather. Our concern is that the minister may force overflying aircraft to divert into weather instead of avoiding it.

Bill C-27 contains some conflicting wording that may be at the root of our problems. For example, the bill states in subclause 16(1) that: “The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting”, and one of the paragraphs, paragraph (o), is “the preservation of public health and the prevention of disease”. But further in that same clause, it states that the Governor in Council may also affect, in paragraph (x) “the control of access to parks by air”.

Further on, the bill also states in subclause 16(3) that:

Regulations made under this section may authorize the superintendent of a park, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions that may be specified in the regulations:

(a) to vary any requirement of the regulations for purposes of public safety or the conservation of natural resources in the park;

COPA has made several representations, including reports of pilots who have been trapped by unexpected poor weather and forced to land at the Banff and Jasper airstrips.

Regarding the importance of these airstrips, unfortunately the heritage minister and the park superintendents, on the one hand having the duty to protect public safety, and on the other hand making regulations that put the public in danger, have and are trying to remove these important airstrips.

Regarding the marine conservation areas, the draft wording gives the minister too much latitude, in our opinion, to make regulations affecting aviation, in particular the control of overflights, a matter that should be strictly in the purview of the Minister of Transport.

During the development of the Saguenay marine conservation act, the aviation industry was not consulted and indeed did not find out about the legislation until it was enacted. In the development of the marine conservation areas legislation, even though there are several affected parties named in the consultation provisions, aviation is left out.

We have made representations and hope that the wording will be changed, but perhaps the best way to ensure that our safety needs are addressed is to entrench them in the National Parks Act.

Therefore, we ask that the committee consider changes to Bill C-27 to preclude the heritage minister from regulating air travel in general and specifically from closing the important airstrips at Banff and Jasper. We understand that a member of Parliament, Inky Mark, is introducing an amendment to ensure that the Banff and Jasper airstrips are retained. We support this initiative for the safety of the travelling public.

We also ask that the committee consider an amendment to Bill C-27 that the wording of paragraph 16(1)(x) be changed to read as follows. The current reading now says that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting “the control of access to parks by air”. We request that the words be added: “where, after consultation with the aviation industry and the Minister of Transport, aviation safety is not compromised”.

I will leave it to your experienced judgment to develop the specific wording, and I can answer any questions that you now have to help clarify the need for such measures.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Considering that Mr. Psutka has to leave in 15 minutes, while members can question anybody they want, if you have any specific questions for him, maybe that could be done.

Mr. Bélanger, then Mr. Bonwick.

• 1700

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): My question is this. Are you suggesting, sir, that this be retained as an emergency landing strip or as an ongoing day-in and day-out area to land and take off from?

Mr. Kevin Psutka: As a minimum, they should be retained for emergency landings.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: Just before I pass on to Mr. Bonwick, I understood, because there had been a question the other day to the deputy minister about this very subject, that the deputy minister confirmed that, for instance, in the case of Banff—he was speaking about Banff precisely because that was the gist of the question—the airstrip is kept open for, indeed, emergency landings. In fact, he said there was no call for it as yet, but it is open, and if it's needed, it's there.

Mr. Kevin Psutka: Yes, that is indeed true. When Parks announced the closure of the airstrips in 1997, they did not follow their own rules for closing things within parks. Not only when you open something but when you close something, you must do a comprehensive environmental assessment.

So Parks was forced against their will to keep the airstrips open only for emergency and diversionary use until such time as an assessment is completed, upon which they will close the airstrips to everyone. They will plow them under. That is their intention. That was confirmed in a direct meeting with the senior staff of Parks Canada. They have no intention of coming to a compromise solution. They will complete the environmental assessment and shut them down.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I have a question to Kevin first, but I do have some—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have questions for these gentlemen too.

The Chair: Yes, Surely. Mr. Bonwick, you can choose.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I would like to address one to Kevin. I was glad at the start that he prefaced his comments with the fact that he appreciates and realizes the importance of Parliament and Canada Parks maintaining the ecological integrity of the parks in the various regions across Canada.

But I'm wondering if in that same spirit of cooperation and trying to address your safety concerns—and this falls in line with Mr. Bélanger's comments of continuing to maintain it as an emergency runway but not wanting it to be used for regular day-in and day-out traffic—your association might consider something to help offset the costs of an emergency runway, have a significant landing fee in place. I'm thinking something along the lines of maybe $350 or $500, something significant so it's actually cost-prohibitive unless there's a safety concern. Would your association consider something like that?

And then I have some questions for these gentlemen.

Mr. Kevin Psutka: The two airstrips, both Banff and Jasper, are nothing more than pastures. The amount of maintenance that's required for them is to cut the grass in summertime and to roll the snow in the wintertime, and also to have a windsock installed so you know which direction the wind is going.

During our discussions with Parks Canada we offered to take up the government on their initiative announced a few years ago for partnering with industry to in fact manage those airstrips. There are two flying clubs, one at Banff and one at Jasper, which until the decision to close the strips in 1997, enjoyed the privilege of keeping their aircraft on those strips, and at the same time they maintained those strips. They took care of them at no cost to the government whatsoever.

We offered, as a compromise to this situation, to keep the airstrips open to permit these pilots to keep their aircraft there—four or five aircraft at each location—in return for their maintenance of the parks' landing strips at their cost. The government refused, and in fact they are paying to have them maintained now.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: What I'm trying to do is get away from that, though. I think that's what the government is trying to do, get away from that. They're not to be storage and they're not to be day-in and day-out. They're trying to eliminate as much air traffic over these parks as possible.

I'm not simply talking from a cost recovery standpoint. I'm suggesting that if we put in place enough of a financial burden, somebody would only use the runways—the pastures, if I may—if it was an emergency. For example, if there's a $350 landing fee, you certainly eliminate the people from coming in and coming out simply to make use of the airport. That is the reason I was suggesting a significant runway fee.

• 1705

Mr. Kevin Psutka: I would suggest that's unworkable if for no other reason than who makes the...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]...west or east of Banff is unsuitable. It would be sunny and very beautiful at the location itself, and the park warden, if he was the one who was to make the decision, would say, “That's an excuse. You're landing here for an excuse.”

Mr. Paul Bonwick: So it's a standard fee then, $350 across the board, and you would eliminate the traffic in that case. I think if you had a fee that high you would find very few people using it.

Mr. Kevin Psutka: Including for emergency.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: If they're going to—

Mr. Kevin Psutka: They would overfly and say, “I'm not going to land there, because I might incur a $350 landing fee”, and subsequently push themselves in the weather that they should not be pushing themselves into.

It already happens, by the way, on something as simple as the general terminal fee that Transport Canada has in place at all of its terminal buildings in the country. It only amounts to something like $10 to $15, and yet people overfly to avoid that fee and sometimes run themselves into fuel shortages and that sort of thing. Our sector is extremely cost-sensitive.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That doesn't sound like safe piloting.

To the gentleman who presented earlier, I wish you could have been here earlier on this afternoon and heard from the Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and the Alberta Wilderness Association. They were talking about parks specifically as well. There was a great quote that one chap came up with, and it was: “The national interest is paramount to the national parks and must override all local interests. Local interests are valued but not supreme. The national interest is supreme.”

I reflect back on my experiences growing up in rural Canada, and my family's. My riding is located on the south shore of Georgian Bay. My family history goes back on my mother's side to the mid-1700s and on my fathers to the late 1800s.

There were some traditional activities that my great-great-grandparents participated in that I don't and that I'm restricted from participating in. There are activities that my grandparents participated in that I'm restricted from doing. I assume there will be restrictions that my children will have to endure that I'm presently not. Having grown up in rural Canada, I accept that the intent of those restrictions is to identify things that are not maintaining or supporting the ecological integrity of certain areas.

I live just outside one of the biospheres identified in the world, and in that respect I accept the responsibility that there are certain things that my parents would do, or my grandparents or my great-grandparents.... As for fishing in creeks, my father used to take me up when I was a little boy and I got to fish in places where I can't go and fish with my little boy today, because we're overfishing. There was hunting in certain seasons that have been condensed now and will continue to be, and it's all in the spirit of maintaining that ecological integrity, maintaining that ecosystem that we didn't recognize was as delicate 100 years ago as we do today. And we may identify 100 years from today that there are things we're doing now that are upsetting the apple cart.

So I don't look at them as encumbrances on myself or my children insofar as compromising my rights, but rather as my buying in and supporting that particular area and righting things that maybe shouldn't have been going on 50 or 60 years ago.

I think your situation is not uncommon in many parts of rural Canada. If you'd like to comment on that, I'd certainly encourage you to do so, but these kinds of situations have occurred in many parts of the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Real Jomphe: I don't know whether you are aware of where I come form. My ancestors came from one of the Magdalen Islands; then, they went to the North Shore in order to be closer to the islands. We don't want to in any way reduce the integrity of the Archipel-de-Mingan Park. We are simply requesting that we be allowed to peaceably carry out traditional activities.

We were told that the Natives have more than we do, but we are not jealous. As well, it is not up to Canadians who live 1,000 kilometres away to tell me what to do and how to do it.

• 1710

We are asking Canadians to help us have a little corner in the park; human beings should have the right to some space in the park. If they want to have areas that are untouched parkland, all they have to do is go to the moon or to the Far North, but nobody will go there. Personally, I am very frustrated. This lady is not familiar with the region. As an honourable member said earlier, they did have islands and they did not maintain them.

There are some 1,000 families on a 150-kilometre territory. For 135 years, we maintained the integrity of the islands, and people practised many more traditional activities than they do now.

I don't see where the problem is. If she wants to take lands that are near her park, she can do so. Last year, we took our place in the park despite everything. She has a right to her opinion, but I don't accept that from someone who is not familiar with the setting.

Whether there is a park in Vancouver or in Banff, I don't really care. If I go to visit, it would be only once in my life. But I am at home almost 365 days per year; I am no visitor.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick, briefly.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: It comes back down to the primary focus of the government being the national interest. I could use the same argument again in my region and say that having been born and raised like my father and his father and his father before him, then the government doesn't have the right to tell me, because we've been fishing these waters for the last 150 years, that I can no longer fish these waters. That's the problem I'm having difficulty with in respect to your argument.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Yves Thériault: I simple want to respond to what you have just said.

I agree with what you've just said. It is true that people evolve. Our community is also evolving. In 1970, we had no links to the roadway; we were somewhat isolated. Later on, the road was paved, which brought more tourists. We had to adjust to that, and we did.

When the park was created, 15 years ago, people were very much more demanding. We think that we represent the compromise position of all of the people who live near the park. We are quite moderate as individuals and there are people in our community who are demanding more.

What is the situation going to be like in 20 years? The situation will certainly have evolved, but we think that with the co-operation of Parks Canada, through discussions, through research in the locations where we could practise certain traditional activities and the times where they could be practised, we could agree to respect our values and the national desire to preserve these parks for future generations.

Parks Canada must also have a long-term vision if it is convinced that people evolve. This evolution will take place over time.

For the time being, we who currently live there request that we be able to practise activities that will not endanger the park and to negotiate with Parks Canada. We think we have a moderate position and we are being quite understanding. All we are asking Parks Canada and the legislator to do is to try to understand this, to meet us halfway. Our request does not appear exaggerated.

The Chair: Mr. Thériault, we have a few minutes left. I will give the floor to Mr. Bélanger, who wants to ask some questions from the people of Minganie, as well as of Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I just want to say that I have some sympathy for what the people from Mingan are saying to us. Mr. Fournier, last year, had some very nice things to say regarding Parks Canada staff. Do you remember that you wrote a letter after last July's meeting? I think that there had been a meeting between Mr. Tremblay and that some progress has been accomplished. I have faith; I think that in maintaining the dialogue, we will be able to come to an understanding. That's all I wanted to say.

• 1715

I want to understand correctly. We are talking about traditional activities and we are saying that those are being impeded. You were talking about picking fruits, raspberries and such. I don't know what grows in the area, but one of these days, I'll go find out. You were also talking about picnicking and camping.

Inasmuch as these activities are already allowed for others, I would imagine that some compromise could be reached. I think that there is enough good will on the part of Parks Canada to continue the dialogue and for people to come to agreements. Of course, you are not going to have everything you want. Nobody ever gets everything they want.

Do you recognize that the presence of Parks Canada is bringing an economic value to the community? Is that something that is accepted?

Mr. Yves Thériault: I believe so, and what Parks Canada put into place is good, as we say in the text.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There are jobs that stem from this.

Mr. Yves Bastien: Yes, that is true.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you have any idea of the number of jobs that this represents?

A voice: [Editor's note: Technical difficulties]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That is not negligible.

A voice: No.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There are 25,000 visitors, if I understood correctly.

A voice: Many of the jobs are part time.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I understand that, but we've gone from 2,000 visitors to 25,000. That must generate some economic activity in the summer, during the four months where the park is open. And that is no doubt something that the community will want to preserve. I imagine that we could come to an agreement.

Are you not allowed some hunting during the winter months?

Mr. Pierre Parisé: As to traditional activities, we have a management plan. In the management plan, one traditional activity is recognized, what they call eider hunt. This type of duck hunting happens during the fall and the winter. It is done along the coast or at sea level. It is therefore not carried out in the park.

Under the legislation, there is no recognized traditional activity that we can carry out within the park boundaries. Parks Canada says that no form of hunting may be carried out within the park. We have been working with the director for some eight or nine months, and our talks are very positive.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In your opinion, snaring hares is not hunting?

Mr. Pierre Parisé: No, because that is something which is done during the winter.

Mr. Denis Boudreau: One has to take a course to obtain a hare snaring licence.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: [Editor's Note: Technical difficulties]... winter?

Mr. Denis Boudreau: As we have explained, where snowmobiles can't be used, we can go to the back country to do this. This would mostly apply to people... [Editor's Note: Technical difficulties]

If someone has a small craft, when the temperature is right, he can go and trap the number of hares he needs for the winter. Snowmobiles are not necessary.

Mr. Pierre Parisé: I would like to add something. This traditional activity has been carried out for 140 years. We have a very fragile and abundant flora.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There are some traditional activities that neither you nor I want to continue.

A voice: That is true.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: One has to recognize that things change and that you have to adapt. You will have to forgive me, because I'm not quite certain of what I'm saying. I would have some work to do myself. I'm not convinced that we need amendments to the bill that is before us in order for Parks Canada and yourselves to come to an agreement.

I understand that you are requesting amendments, because that is the clearest way to make your representation here, but I'm not convinced that it's necessary. Before supporting this request, I'm going to do some homework. I will try to see whether the park administration already has the authority, through its management plan, to allow certain activities. I believe so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Since the bells are ringing, I will be brief. I heard the position taken by my colleague across the way and I would like to make a comment.

We are saying that national interest overrides local interest. I would like to remind you that the North Shore and the Mid North Shore are not comparable to other regions of the country. People have chosen to live there. Sometimes others wonder how they can live there. People also chose to live in a quiet area to have some peace and quiet and to practice their traditional activities. The North Shore territory is exceptional.

• 1720

You have to like that lifestyle to go there. Not everybody would go there. It's a very large territory which is very sparsely populated. We have to have faith in these people. I am saying that the land first belongs to those who live upon it, those who are on it. Who is in the best position to protect it? We are not showing confidence in them when we think that they are incapable of protecting their territory. I think that they're capable of doing so.

In that part of the world, there is no farmland. Nothing grows there and it's colder than elsewhere. For them, one good reason to be there is that they can hunt and fish. They are surrounded by raw nature. That doesn't mean that the people are not civilized people. It is a beautiful part of the country.

I think that their interest must be the priority. We cannot deprive the people of one of their most beautiful sites and prevent them from exercising an activity which is essential to their survival. I think that it is absolutely essential, to meet their needs, to maintain these traditional activities which their ancestors practised in order to hand them down to their children.

If I understood you correctly, during tourist season, there is no hunting with rifles. In the fall, you hunt duck. Do you do any other hunting?

Mr. Real Jomphe: Outside the park.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Outside the park.

That's all, Mr. Chairman. Are we going to come back afterwards or are we done?

The Chair: We're done. We will not be returning. Thank you very much.

Mr. Yves Thériault: Thank you so much for having listened to us.

The Chair: We would like to thank you for having come so far to see us. I know that it was difficult. You travelled very far. You have explained your point of view with great candour and with humour as well. We appreciate it very much. Thank you for appearing.

We are adjourned.