HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 18, 2000

• 0905

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[Translation]

is meeting today to continue its study of Bill C-27,

[English]

An Act respecting the national parks of Canada.

Before we start, our closing week has been a very tough week for most members, with long hours of sittings, and I would like to thank the members for their tremendous cooperation. You are included, Peter, along with the staff and all who managed to put the sessions together. There have been long sittings, and the attendance has been remarkable. So thank you very much to all.

Today we are pleased to welcome various guests who have come a long way to present their points of view to us. From the Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment, Mr. Brad J. Pierce, president; from the Jasper Town Committee, Mr. Richard Ireland, the chairman; from the Wasagaming Tenants Association, Mr. Derek Booth; and from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Mr. Ed Cashman.

Mr. Cashman, would you come to the table, please. Mr. Cashman, if you want somebody else to speak when your time comes, then by all means we'll invite them to the table. For the time being, we're hoping there will be one spokesperson for each organization, in view of the time.

This is a round table format. Each organization will speak on its behalf for about 10 minutes, and that will allow time for the members to ask questions. We have another appointment. We have to leave to go to the Museum of Nature after this meeting, so we'll have to close on time, at 11 a.m. I'm asking for the cooperation of everybody to be concise and to respect the timing.

Who wants to lead off? I have on my list Mr. Pierce as the first person. Would you like to start, Mr. Pierce?

Mr. Brad J. Pierce (President, Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment): That would be no problem, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Brad Pierce: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Brad Pierce. I'm the president of the Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment. The Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment, or AMPPE as it has become known, is pleased to make this submission to the committee regarding Bill C-27.

Since its formation in 1994, AMPPE has been an active participant in the development of government policy relating to responsible human use and enjoyment of Canada's mountain parks while preserving their sensitive environment. While AMPPE fully supports the conservation mandate of Canada's mountain parks, we believe that parks also exist for the benefit, education, and enjoyment of Canadians, as is reflected in the existing legislation and in the current bill's dedication clause.

Our concern regarding Bill C-27—though we do have some technical points, which I will highlight later—is not with what is contained in the bill, which is largely a consolidation of prior amendments, but with what is not in the proposed legislation. Specifically, we are concerned that there are not sufficient checks and balances placed upon the authority of the minister and Parks Canada to ensure that the parks serve both as places for nature and as places for people. Without additional checks and balances, we believe that the tremendous pressure, both from within Parks Canada and the minister's office and powerful environmental lobby groups to “rewild” the parks will result in the interests of people in the parks being unduly trammelled upon.

• 0910

Over the past several years, and since the release of the Banff-Bow Valley study, there have been numerous constraints placed upon visitor use in the four mountain parks.

These have included caps on development, including with respect to the town of Banff; removal of physical facilities such as the Banff army cadet camp; closures of trails and other park infrastructure; limits on the types and amount of activities within the parks, including limits on ski area capacity; and increased costs and fees for activities within the parks, including dramatic rent increases to leaseholders.

Most would agree, including AMPPE members, that some constraint was appropriate, and directionally represents positive change to protect ecological integrity within the parks. The difficulty we have, and much of the controversy that exists relative to the actions that have been taken, is the degree to which they have ignored the legitimate people interests in the park. The reason for this, we believe, is that the restrictions were developed, approved, and implemented based solely on criteria and concerns of conservation biologists with no regard for the social or economic impacts. As some have put it, the minister and Parks Canada have considered only one leg of a three-legged stool and, taking this analogy literally, have thereby upset the balance in the parks.

This same singular focus, we believe, is reflected in the recently released report of the panel on ecological integrity, which sought little or no input from a social or economic perspective. Nor is the impact of the panel's recommendations in a social or economic context reflected anywhere.

Some estimates, we understand, put the costs of implementing the panel's recommendations in the billions of dollars, certainly an amount worth considering.

This strikes at the heart of our concern regarding Bill C-27, which we feel will grant even more authority to the minister and Parks Canada to take steps to protect ecological integrity with no regard to the impact upon visitor enjoyment or regional economies.

In our submission, there is little or nothing in the proposed legislation that can be held in the way of the minister, Parks Canada, and the environmental lobby groups from unduly excluding Canadians from many of the park experiences they currently enjoy and causing serious and irreparable damage to important elements of Canada's tourism industry.

Some check, some balance, needs to be injected into the new bill to give people in the parks a leg to stand on to respond to the continuous pressure to reduce human use in the parks unnecessarily.

To that end, we propose the following recommendations be considered.

One is that a new subclause, subclause 8(3), be added as follows:

The minister shall consider the benefit, education and enjoyment derived by visitors to the parks and minimize the impact of actions taken to maintain ecological integrity.

We believe this will impose a positive obligation upon the minister and Parks Canada to address the social and economic impacts of their actions in the context of maintaining ecological integrity as the first priority in the parks.

Second, we believe some provision should be added to the legislation to allow for some means of independent review or appeal from decisions under the proposed legislation in relation to park zoning and visitor use; the termination, surrender, and renewal or non-renewal of leases and licences of occupation; requirements for environmental assessments and screenings; mitigation measures in relation to environmental damage; and community plans and parks management plans.

At a minimum, some standard of fairness and reasonableness in exercising these authorities and rules of natural justice in making these decisions is required.

An immediate concern in this regard is what will happen to the some 3,000 leases for outlying commercial accommodation and other facilities in the parks when they come due in the next few years. With the new guidelines and restrictions recommended by the OCA review panel and substantial increases in lease rents, many operators have indicated to us that they may be unable to continue operations.

Does this then mean that they are without recourse and must face the loss of their livelihoods, not to mention Canadians losing some of the most unique attractions in the parks? There must be some mechanism provided in the proposed legislation to allow these people the opportunity to seek an independent review of these types of decisions that alter their fundamental rights.

There are, admittedly, some minimal rights of appeal in the regulations and policies of Parks Canada with regard to leases, but we believe there should be something included specifically in the legislation to ensure these obligations and rights continue to exist. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, we do not have a formulation for you, but I make the point in any event.

• 0915

Third, although perhaps not within the purview of this committee—and perhaps as part of our first suggestion—we suggest that by regulation or some other means the authority be given to the Parks Canada Agency to establish a visitors' secretariat or visitors' ombudsman, properly resourced, to ensure that the people's interests in the parks, including social and economic interests, are fairly considered in respect of any action taken to maintain ecological integrity. Currently, we understand, each park will have established a director of ecological integrity, and in our view it is only appropriate that similar treatment be offered people's interests in the parks.

Fourth, one of the reasons we believe people's interests in the parks have been ignored in recent years is that many of the resources allocated to Parks Canada have been expended addressing ecological concerns. Our concern in this regard is twofold.

First, it is abundantly clear to all concerned that Parks Canada does not have the resources to fulfil its mandate and that substantial increases in funding and resources are necessary.

Second, few, if any, of the resources of Parks Canada in recent years have been spent addressing concerns other than ecological concerns, and there must be a more balanced allocation such that, in addition to biological science, there is good social science to fully understand the implications of management actions in the parks to preserve ecological integrity. Again, we believe this should be included specifically in the legislation and that there must be some means of ensuring Parks Canada is properly resourced.

Finally, we have a technical concern regarding subclauses 15(2), 15(3), and 15(4) of the proposed legislation. Under subsections 6(4) and 6(5) of the existing legislation, it was clear that if the minister were to exercise an authority granted by the Governor in Council to acquire by expropriation lands or interests within the park, the legislation required that the Expropriation Act apply.

Under the proposed legislation, the minister is specifically authorized to terminate leases and licences of occupation, and if public lands cease to be used for a purpose, the right or interest then reverts to the crown. There is also no reference in the proposed legislation to the application of the Expropriation Act for the acquisition of lands or interests within the parks.

The concern is that the authority of the minister to terminate leases and licences of occupation, which are interests in land, and the section providing for the reversion of these interests to the crown will allow for the taking of those interests without the protection of due process and compensation afforded by the Expropriation Act.

In brief discussions with the draftsman of the legislation, we were told this is not the intent, and that for the legislation to be interpreted in this manner, it would have to be clearly spelled out. We remain concerned, however, because of the obvious change from the prior legislation as well as of the notion now included in the proposed legislation, that if lands are no longer used for a purpose they shall revert to the crown.

If it is clearly not the intent that the lands could be expropriated or leases terminated without fair compensation, we believe it should be made clear in the proposed legislation so that the leaseholders in the parks are assured their rights will not be taken away without being afforded the same protection of due process and compensation afforded to all other Canadians.

In closing, we are not asking the committee for changes to the legislation that would reduce the priority properly given to the conservation of the natural heritage of our parks. Because of the extreme focus in recent years, people involved in the national parks, and the mountain parks in particular, are keenly aware of the importance of ecological integrity and the need for everyone to take steps to preserve it.

Solutions that have worked in the mountain parks and that are in fact being recommended by the ecological integrity panel to be adopted in other parks have been developed only because of and through the dynamic tension that exists amongst stakeholders. What we are asking is that there be some pause, some restraint, when the minister or Parks Canada takes or proposes any action to preserve ecological integrity so that the full consequences can be understood and the parks can remain both places for nature and for people.

Thank you for listening to our submission.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Pierce.

Could I call on Mr. Richard Ireland, on behalf of the Jasper Town Committee. Mr. Ireland.

Mr. Richard Ireland (Chairman, Jasper Town Committee): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I am the chairman of the Jasper Town Committee. Appearing with me is Mr. Legget. He is the vice-chairman of that committee. Together we appear before you on behalf of the Jasper Town Committee and on behalf of the residents of Jasper, and on their behalf I extend our sincere appreciation for this opportunity to present our views on this important legislation.

We have submitted a detailed brief. We thank you for rescheduling our appearance. Among other things, it allowed us the opportunity to have the brief translated, and I trust you all have copies available in both languages. Is that so?

The Chair: Yes, we do.

• 0920

Mr. Richard Ireland: Thank you, sir.

I do not intend to review the brief in detail. I do draw your attention to our summary of points of concern on page 7 of the brief, and to our statement of recommendations and conclusions on page 12.

I hope, at this time, to attempt to acquaint you in a very general sense with our community and its issues.

I consider myself representative of our community, not solely by virtue of my position as an elected representative. I was born in Jasper. My father was a locomotive engineer—a “hoghead”, as it's called—in Jasper for about 35 years. Mr. Legget is another hoghead; he drives a train. I married a Jasper girl. We have two sons, and they represent the fourth generation of our family to live in Jasper.

I went to university for a few years, but I returned to Jasper primarily because I wanted to give my sons the opportunity to grow up in the community, in the setting, and in the park I treasure. It's because of my sons and their future, and the future of their friends, their friends' parents, and many more like them, that I appear before you today.

Jasper is our home. We love it. We're proud of it. We want to preserve it. We want to protect it and the park that cradles it. We also want to make the town function better, for its sake and for the sake of the park, and for the future generations of Canadians and others who will have the good fortune to experience its tranquility and beauty.

Some of you have been to Jasper. Some of you will have heard or read about Jasper. You may have heard or read that Jasper is a resort community. Well, it's not. It's a real community, perhaps not much different from your own community or your own neighbourhoods.

A resort community is someplace where residents change as often as the season, and maybe more rapidly. They lack fixed and permanent ties to the community. Time shares, in my view, more than anything else, define resort communities. People come and visit and stay for a while, but then they go home.

That's not Jasper. Jasper is permanent. Jasper is home. It's home to me and to about 5,000 of my fellow residents. I assure you, as a community and as individuals, we share a conviction to preserve the town and the park. We share a conviction to serve our visitors and to present our home and our surroundings to Canadians and others in a manner that celebrates both our natural and our human history.

Our conviction is reflected in our Jasper community vision statement. The full text of that vision is included in our brief, beginning towards the bottom of page 4, and I invite you to take the time to read that vision at some point. It's a vision that is endorsed, as you will see, by Parks Canada. They've signed off on it. It's a vision that sees the community and Parks Canada acting in tandem to achieve common goals.

In our brief you will read about our desire for community empowerment. Our vision in that regard must not be viewed as threatening. Community empowerment does not imply any loss of power to Parks Canada. Instead, it contemplates the assumption by the community of duties, obligations, and responsibilities that would otherwise be the burden of Parks Canada, and thereby releases Parks Canada to deal unencumbered with its primary challenges. As partners in a common pursuit, our empowerment strengthens Parks Canada. It frees Parks Canada to address the broader park issues that are the essence of its mandate and of its expertise.

We seek to manage municipal affairs within an envelope designed and agreed to by Parks Canada in order that we may directly, effectively, and with accountability deal with matters of local concern, and in order that Parks Canada may then apply its somewhat limited resources to matters of more general park concern.

We recognize that there will be matters of overlap. Those areas can be accommodated. We recognize that Parks Canada must have control over land use and development. We recognize that Parks Canada must have ultimate control over matters of ecological integrity and the environment. All of that can be accommodated if there is first the recognition that the community is an ally and can be trusted to devote itself to the attainment of common goals and to pursue purely local interests only in a manner consistent with national park policy and values.

• 0925

Despite the experience elsewhere, or the perception of that experience, Jasper and its residents are not a threat to the national park. Our vision statement, significantly, was developed and drafted without Parks Canada's involvement—in other words, we took that upon ourselves and drafted that vision statement, which Parks then endorsed—and despite our record as an advisory committee. Those things confirm our values and our commitment to those values.

We are not here to disparage Parks Canada. If they have the will, they do not have the tools, the resources, the expertise, or the time to be municipal managers. That reality is confirmed in Parks Canada's own document, which is quoted at page 4 of our brief. I'll quote a part of that to you. This comes from Operational Review 29, which was a review of national park communities. I think it was tabled in July 1994:

Administratively and politically, the reliance on what is essentially park management-related legislation has proven to be cumbersome, limiting in terms of municipal requirements, and generally, far less satisfactory than provincial legislation.

It continues:

These weaknesses in the present system with few exceptions, result in regulations used to administer communities (signs, building, development, etc.) that are national in application, invariably out of date, and do not take into account local conditions and circumstances. Moreover, they are costly to amend through the Order-in-Council process and reaching national consensus prior to change is frustrating, time consuming, and in some cases, impossible.

That's from Parks Canada's own document.

Our community has the will, the time, and the interest to address those weaknesses, and those are weaknesses of process, not of people. But we need the authorities, and we need the tools.

We do not in any sense wish to usurp or compromise Parks Canada's ultimate authority. We recognize that they are and must remain the guardian of the public interest. Again I say, our mutual needs can be accommodated with goodwill on both sides and a recognition that we are in this together in pursuit of shared values. We can find a way.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Richard Ireland: I'm sorry—

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Ireland. I thought you had concluded.

Mr. Richard Ireland: We had suggested how the act might be amended to achieve our needs in a manner consistent with and furthering Parks Canada's needs. We have not provided detailed, specific wording for clause-by-clause amendment. We're not experts in legislative drafting. We will undertake to provide detailed wording, if requested, but our position is, first, that there must be a recognition in the legislation that community empowerment is legitimate, desirable, and achievable in the overall best interests of the park. This legislation need not define the model or the scope of local government in Jasper. It must, however, confirm in clear, unambiguous language that the establishment and empowerment of a form of local government, properly limited, is authorized.

Perhaps I've gone on too long.

The Chair: No, it's okay.

Mr. Richard Ireland: Our brief and my remarks simply underscore the fact that these are issues of fundamental concern to our community. I cannot address all the points. I certainly welcome the opportunity to answer questions, and I thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you. I think you made your position very clear.

Mr. Booth is our next witness.

I don't know if you're a member of the Wasagaming Tenants Association, but you are representing it.

Mr. Derek Booth (Legal Counsel, Wasagaming Tenants Association): Correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Wasagaming is the townsite in Riding Mountain National Park, which is the only national park fully operating in Manitoba, and has been since the early 1930s. I represent all the stakeholders there.

I don't propose to go through my seven-page brief, but I do want to point out two corrections to you.

First of all, at the bottom of page 3, the third line from the bottom should read: “sections 19, 20, 21, and 22 of Bill C-27”.

• 0930

The Chair: Could you say that again slowly, please?

Mr. Derek Booth: Certainly. Substitute clauses 19, 20, 21, and 22 for the clauses quoted in the third-last line. Of course, in the next line it's Bill C-27 now, not Bill C-70. This was prepared for the previous bill.

Then turning to the summary on page 7 of our brief, paragraph 3, the second line should read “clause 19” instead of “clause 2”. Paragraph 4(i) on that page should read “paragraph 17(3)(b)” instead of “paragraph 18(3)(b)”.

I will refer briefly to some of the sections in the brief, but I don't want to get too technical. I want to talk about what we perceive has happened in our park and probably in other parks.

We're merely a seasonal park. We're only in there for seven months of the year, then everyone is kicked out except the bureaucrats. They stay in there for 12 months, but we're all out.

The situation has evolved. The parks were originally developed for the stakeholders—the tourists—and I call them the people. That was the intent, and I refer you to page 1 of my brief, where I quote:

The National Parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada.... The features of the park are the national heritage of all Canadians.

It seems to me that's been lost sight of. Instead of now being for the people, the parks have evolved into a massive organization primarily for the civil servants.

The problem with that is they have a vested interest in making the parks not only better but bigger and more plentiful. They are not just for the people of Canada any more; they want to become world-class destinations. They want to become recognized around the world. And Banff isn't far from that. I don't know if any of you go there, but you count the local people in a minority compared to the tourists from all over the world—Germany, Japan, wherever. So it's pretty tough, with all those people in there and the money they spend, for the people of Canada to enjoy these parks the way it was originally intended.

We see there's an empire being created for Parks Canada. It's driven by foreign tourists and by a desire to become world-recognized, but that has its costs. There are problems that evolve from that. When I started going to the park over 50 years ago, there was a small staff of parks employees who generally were there for their careers. So you didn't need the facade of this consultation process, which I'll get to later; you had it—it was automatic. The superintendent knew everyone, and everyone knew him on a first-name basis, as well as all the other staff. So he knew what was going on and what was required. It was the same with the tourists who came in there. The staff members were available and they didn't change.

Now you have career civil servants who go there and then move on. I see John Low is here this morning. He's worked at I don't know how many parks in Canada. I got to know him briefly in the two years he was in Wasagaming. So they come and they go. They're not so much interested in looking after the park where they're working, as this whole Parks Canada concept and where they're going to be in this giant IBM-like organization. That's what has happened.

• 0935

What suffers are all the stakeholders and all the people of Canada.

The parks employees aren't all bad; I'm not saying that for a minute. But this legislation—at least the sections we've pointed out—has the capacity to aggravate that situation, which I say is undesirable. On the parks employees, I can quote an article in our local Winnipeg Free Press of May 14.

We have a fine retired warden, Ray Fetterly by name, who has been in the service since 1952. He has written three books. One of the clauses in this new bill wants to censor publications. What will happen to Mr. Fetterly's stories of the park and of heritage? They will be censored. Some bureaucrat is going to look at them and say “You can't say that; we're going to change that.” So that's one example of the problems this new legislation exacerbates.

I intend to refer to our heritage and the benefit to the people of Canada, and how this legislation adversely affects those two values. The first portion I would like you to refer to is on page 2 of my brief on clause 9.

As far as I can see, this local government body is of great use to permanent year-round communities like Jasper, which Mr. Ireland represents. It's of certain great use and value to Banff, but it's not of much use to people who are in there for seven months. So when this type of legislation was first proposed, I did some investigation into it. Parks Canada commissioned an independent consultant to recommend how they could best get in the device of property taxation, in addition to the rental fees they collect and all the other user fees for utilities, garbage, and so on.

Recognizing that it would be highly unpopular—and improper, as it now turns out, because they've withdrawn it from the act—they suggested in this hired consultant's report that Parks Canada create advisory councils or community councils, and each of those community councils have what they called a memorandum of understanding, or a charter. This would let the people on this council think they were running and controlling their affairs, but one of the unquestioned and irrevocable provisions in that memorandum of understanding was a provision for property taxation. So that was the device they were using, and what they appear to want to maintain by keeping clause 9 in there.

They gave almost full autonomy to Banff, except for the instances that were well publicized, when the Honourable Sheila Copps interjected and reversed things. But the others don't want or need local government. If you're going to give them local government, then give it to them and let them run their own show, with some checks and balances. That's apparently what Banff has, and Jasper apparently wants a form of that.

But the rest of us don't need it for seven months of the year. We're afraid they're going to use it against us again. Taxation might rear its ugly head again.

• 0940

I won't say much about clause 15 on page 2 of my brief. Mr. Ireland has already mentioned that. The fact that they want to insert these clauses in there to provide for unilateral termination of contracts they've entered into, of leases, of licences, of permits, is just so abhorrent not only to democracy but also to all of our legal principles in Canada that to put it in is just the height of arrogance. However, that's the sort of power they seem to want.

I'll now turn to clause 16 at page 3 of my brief. What has happened in Wasagaming is that using a power like that, they've done such wonderful things as close down the main entrance to the park and divert it around the commercial area. If you're a tourist coming in there, you don't even know where the lake is, where the commercial area is, where the main pier is, where the things are that you're going to see, because they've torn down the original heritage gate, put up earth and—

The Chair: Could I interrupt you for a minute.

Mr. Derek Booth: Certainly.

The Chair: I don't know how long you're going to go on before you conclude, but you've been well over 10 minutes, and we have to give a chance to the members to ask questions. So I was wondering if you could summarize your thoughts, perhaps go back to your conclusions and just tell us exactly—

Mr. Derek Booth: Certainly, Mr. Lincoln. Thank you for that.

Turning to page 7 of my brief, then, the summary, I've talked about the dictatorial powers, and I have given you an example of how they've tried to get even more powers in. They have routinely proceeded in the past with a lack of notice and a lack of due process. They form committees and dictate the membership of them. Parks Canada prepares the minutes for them, which are often edited. They want to breach already existing contracts and leases. I've mentioned censorship. They want to have in clause 16 deletions from souvenirs, publications, etc.

I say that there are some good civil servants. I'm on Mr. Lee's side here. When Mr. Lee appeared before this committee on May 11, he indicated at page 3 of the minutes I have that they don't want more powers, that they don't want to be policing and doing criminal functions. Yet we have clause 19 in there, where they want to create a special class of enforcement officers and give them more powers. Mr. Lee admitted on May 11 that he has the power to indicate whether or not they can bear arms. We are frightened by the idea of mostly university students going in there with no training. If they're given the power to carry arms, well, heaven help us.

Clause 17 creates a special class of people, giving aboriginals and others special rights in the park. The original intent was that the park was for all the people of Canada. So I question the wisdom of that.

I think the few clauses I've mentioned that remain in my brief exacerbate those problems I've outlined and should be removed, as I've recommended in my brief.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Booth. Mr. Booth, I noticed during your intervention that you referred to one of the public servants by name. I didn't call you on it because I took it that you were just referring to Mr. Low moving from park to park and that you were not casting any aspersions on Mr. Low's proficiency. So I just left it. But I just wanted to mention to the witnesses that in fairness to the public servants who are here, if they're mentioned by name, they just don't have the chance to defend themselves. I think as long as it's a positive comment, that's fine.

• 0945

Mr. Derek Booth: No criticism of Mr. Low was intended, Mr. Chairman. I apologize if that impression was left. He's probably moved by some mandarin above him and has no control over where he goes. However, I did mention Mr. Lee because he was mentioned before and because he made one of the rare positive statements for the stakeholders.

The Chair: Considering your love for public servants, I can see that's a good lead-in to the next witness.

From the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Mr. Ed Cashman.

[Translation]

Mr. Ed Cashman (National President of the National Component, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members.

We welcome the opportunity to meet with members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to discuss with you Bill C- 27, an Act respecting the National Parks of Canada. We wish to state unequivocally that Bill C-27 is what may be considered a good Act and an Act which we support in most of its content.

The purpose of today's presentation is to advise you of those areas of the Act for which we believe some modification or changes should be made. We wish to ensure not only the preservation and conversation of our national parks and national historic sites, but also to ensure that employees within the Parks Canada Agency are given full opportunity to carry out their responsibilities in a thorough and safe manner for all affected parties—employees, all clients of the Agency, as well as the general public.

Within Bill C-27, there are specific requirements dealing with enforcement, but they are not complete in terms of responsibilities of the Parks Canada Agency to certain employees, mainly wardens. Bill C-27 should be more complete in respect to providing a more comprehensive measure of security and safety for wardens involved in enforcement responsibilities and all inherent duties and activities associated with such responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission and with the indulgence of committee members, I would like to give the floor to two employees who work in the field and who would be in a better position to tell you about their concerns.

The Chair: Yes, of course.

Mr. Ed Cashman: I would like to introduce Mr. Doug Martin, a park warden and our union official for the province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories, as well as Donna Crossland, a park warden who represents the employees of Kouchibouguac Park in New Brunswick.

[English]

The Chair: So long as overall you don't take more time than we can allow. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Doug Martin (Assistant Vice-President, Alberta and Northwest Territories, Public Service Alliance of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on the security and safety of park wardens.

Just as some background information, park wardens have three primary functions: resource conservation, law enforcement, and public safety. Park wardens are peace officers as defined by the act for the enforcement of the National Parks Act and for the maintenance of public peace in a national park. Park wardens deal with armed individuals—we're here talking about the safety of wardens—much more so than do other policing organizations, such as the RCMP or city police. We deal with hunters who are armed. We deal with people in campsites who have axes. All hikers carry large knives or pepper spray in the form of bear spray with them. So our safety is of utmost concern.

The other thing we must mention is that even bad people take holidays and come and visit our national parks. So it is of paramount importance that we look at the safety of park wardens.

Four studies have been undertaken by Parks Canada to look at this. In 1993 a Quebec study of park wardens and the jobs they do in enforcement was undertaken. That study recommended that park wardens receive the training and equipment to the full extent of the standard of care in Canada. What we're talking about is training, and the lightning rod of that is a side arm, a defensive tool we must be able to utilize.

The RCMP reviewed our work and found that we are the best people to perform the task of law enforcement within the national parks because of our resource background, because of our public safety and our association with the parks.

• 0950

In 1997, a similar study to the Quebec study was undertaken in western Canada. That study also indicated that park wardens should be trained and equipped to the fullest extent of the law today. Finally, last fall, a joint union-management committee meeting was assembled, and once again, that led to operational wardens being equipped and trained to the fullest extent of the law.

What we're talking about is a standard of care. In Canada today, nine of the ten provinces' resource conservation officers are trained and equipped to this standard of care. Newfoundland, being the last one, is going through that process of equipping and protecting their resource conservation officers to that level. It is paramount that we look at the safety of our park wardens.

We have come today with some suggestions as to how to improve upon the act that's before us. As Ed stated, we support that act. It is very good. But we think it needs some small twigging. We think the definition clause requires definitions of “oath”, “sense of duty” and “enforcement”. We think the park warden definition has to be expanded upon, because we believe the act should state that the duties should include the enforcement of the National Parks Act. This is paramount to park wardens.

Park wardens have met with senior management of Parks Canada and have felt threatened. They said that if we continued with this push towards officer safety, they would remove law enforcement from our duties. We felt threatened at meetings where we were told that. Therefore we want it included within the act.

We also want to be able to say, similar to the American national parks, that enforcement within the national parks will only be conducted by park wardens. That's paramount. This has been done in American national parks. It's not something new that we're asking; it's something that our sister agency in the United States has undertaken.

In addition to that, we have other clauses that say that except for enforcement, the chief executive officer or the minister can of course organize and carry out the purposes of the act. We're not trying to control or modify anything.

The other submission is that of putting directly within the act the exception that park wardens can be armed with side arms, a defensive tool that is necessary.

The second-last submission we are putting forward to you—and this is all within our brief—is that we want included within the act a definition of the ability of wardens to stop vehicles, whether that be an automobile, a vessel, or an aircraft, to inspect for wildlife or wildlife parts or fish or firearms. That has to be defined within the act to protect wardens.

I can give you a personal example about that. I'm presently at the pointy end of a lawsuit because I was carrying out my duties as a park warden, working with federal fishery officers, undertaking a highway check stop. We stopped a judge. That judge is now suing the department and has named me.

It's a simple thing. It is within provincial resource conservation officer acts. It's a very basic thing. It's a tool we must have in order to do our job and to do our job effectively.

The final thing we believe should be within the act is something coming out of ecological integrity or something that parallels that. We believe mitigation of environmental damage has to be a fundamental part of the act, where degradation to the environment is specifically appointed within the act.

These are some simple recommendations. The paramount thing is that we want to be able to perform our jobs safely and to the standard of care of other resource conservation agencies in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll turn it over to my partner here.

The Chair: Briefly, please.

Ms. Donna Crossland (Member, Public Service Alliance of Canada): I too am a park warden and peace officer currently employed in Kouchibouguac National Park in New Brunswick. I perform a wide array of tasks, but above and beyond regular training, I am also a trainer for intervention techniques. In plain words, I'm an officer safety instructor. I'm here today to share with you some of the personal experiences I have had working as a park warden.

• 0955

In September 1998, for example, I was involved in a planned operation to intercept two persons who were fishing illegally within the park. I proceeded to the area on a boat with a warden colleague and Corporal Emery of the RCMP as armed backup for this situation. Before we could fully realize what was happening, shortly after arriving at the scene, both individuals quickly became aggressive. Corporal Emery received repeated strikes to the facial area with a wire bucket. I had to dodge away from the same aggressor to avoid being struck by the same object.

On that day, all the defensive tools I had been issued failed. I first attempted to protect Corporal Emery with my pepper spray. I deployed it twice, fully in the face of the aggressor, and got absolutely no reaction. The aggression continued. The fight continued. Some moments later, as the fight continued, I deployed my defensive baton, something that I had hoped I would never have to do during my entire career. I struck the main aggressor twice with full-force blows, and again had absolutely no reaction.

The fight continued until my colleague Warden Daigle brought the key aggressor under control and he was handcuffed. As he was handcuffed, I received a punch in the face from the second aggressor. The force of the blow knocked me into my warden colleague and partly into the water. The whole incident took place in water of a depth of approximately mid-thigh. Before the incident was over, the main aggressor threatened to kill Warden Daigle and Corporal Emery.

To shorten the story, both clients served some time in jail, one a month and a half and the other four days. On the day they were sentenced, they vowed to return and offend again, commit the same offence. I'm uncertain when I may come across these two individuals again in the park.

What I'm hoping you'll gain from my sharing this incident with you is that even though we had a well-thought-out law enforcement plan for that operation and we thought we'd mitigated some of the dangers we may come across, things change quickly out there. You can never mitigate for the behaviour of the subjects you may meet in the park. We will never be able to adequately predict how those subjects that we come across may react. Most of them are not aggressive at all, of course, but on occasion they can be.

From my perspective, as a warden in the field, I feel the only way my safety can be increased in the field is through the issuance of a side arm.

I'm not sure if I have time to share any other incidences with you today.

The Chair: Maybe during the question period. In fairness to the members, they want to ask questions. I think you've given us an idea of what the context is. If members are interested, I'm sure they will ask more questions.

Ms. Donna Crossland: A conclusion, perhaps?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Donna Crossland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion, I want to make it perfectly clear that most of the incidents that have occurred when I have worked in national parks as a park warden, the times when I felt significantly threatened, were when I was enforcing the National Parks Act, when the offences were under the National Parks Act. They were also incidents where a lot of law enforcement planning had taken place in advance of when we intervened in the incident. Still it was not sufficient to reduce the risk.

I simply want to be able to adequately protect the public and to be able to adequately protect myself when I'm out there conducting law enforcement, protecting our natural resources and protecting the public. I want to be able to go home at the end of my shift to my loved ones and know that I've gotten through my day or my night shift as safely as I can.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll open the meeting to questions. We'll start with Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First let me thank you all for coming and welcome you to the committee. Some of you have come a long way.

Certainly what I hear this morning is a feeling of frustration regarding the way decisions are made on the governance of park users. I would like to ask two questions. The first one deals with the whole issue of the governance model and decision-making, and the other one is on accountability.

• 1000

Regarding Jasper, it's certainly a unique situation. I don't know of one in the country where you have an elected body by the people and yet it has very little authority. I know municipally we have similar types of municipal models, such as local government districts, which are much like your improvement district, but they certainly have a lot more authority than you would, even though you represent the people in the community.

You indicated that it's not the people you're criticizing; you're criticizing the process. I would like to hear from all of you examples of what's wrong with the process. What is wrong with the process?

The Chair: To whom are you directing the question?

Mr. Inky Mark: All of them can respond to that. What is wrong with the process? Give me examples.

Mr. Richard Ireland: If I may respond first to that question, and I appreciate it, a couple of things are wrong with the process. You used the word “unique” in your questioning, identifying the community as unique. That in fact is the start of most of the problems. We are dealing with national legislation and yet we have to respond to particular community needs. The characteristics, the needs, the circumstances of the communities across this country in national parks are all different, but there's one piece of legislation. It's the National Parks Act and the regulations under that. So they are not responsive with respect to local needs. That's one of the problems.

Another problem is that there are vacuums. The regulations under the National Parks Act do not function as precisely and in such detailed fashion as municipal bylaws would in any other community, so there are simply gaps.

Another problem is the time it takes to respond to anything if in fact there is a response capability under the legislation. For something as simple as a parking authority in Jasper—we have a parking problem, everybody recognizes it—the town has no authority to do anything. But we certainly recommend that we have a parking authority so we can deal with this.

Again, I say it's a process and not a people problem, and you've noted that. But for nine years Parks Canada has not been able to institute a parking authority. I've been advised that they have hired someone in Ottawa to carry documents between departments trying to solve this problem, but it doesn't seem to happen. It's not because there isn't a will to make something happen, but the legislation apparently is too broad and general and national in scope to address that particular issue.

That's one example. It may seem minor, but it's simply reflective of the difficulty.

The Chair: Mr. Ireland, could you speed up, please.

Mr. Richard Ireland: All right. I won't give you a bunch of examples, but if you look at the quotation I referred to in my brief, from the Operational Review 29, Parks Canada has already identified the shortcomings of the present system, and we echo that.

The Chair: Who else wants to answer Mr. Mark?

Mr. Derek Booth: Briefly, Mr. Mark, Mr. Chairman, I'll give you a couple of examples. In Wasagaming we have had the rents under our leases increased by 400% without consultation. We have had the utility costs for water, sewer where it's available, garbage, and so on increased the same amount without consultation. We've had the whole physical infrastructure, as I mentioned before briefly, the roads and so on, changed and diverted without consultation. They've recognized the error of their ways with that. They now realize that they destroyed a heritage gate and they're scrambling around trying to find it. I can tell them where it is, but they destroyed it twenty years ago—all without consultation.

Those things happen on a regular basis whenever there is a plan that seems to be what the bureaucrats want. I don't criticize the online people who are out there fighting with the poachers and so on. By and large, they do a heck of a job. I just don't want a lot of untrained people out there with guns and mace and so on.

The Chair: I believe you're sharing your time with Mr. Breitkreuz, is that right?

• 1005

Mr. Inky Mark: I've only just started, just a couple of minutes.

The Chair: Then you'll have to decide between the two of you, because in fairness to the others....

Mr. Derek Booth: Let me give one more example while you're deciding.

The Chair: One second, Mr. Booth, if I let you go....

All right. Mr. Breitkreuz. We'll come back to you after, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, everybody, and again welcome to this committee. You certainly all made very interesting presentations.

Mr. Booth, I suspect you probably represent the frustrations of the typical resident living in our national parks, because I hear that quite often.

Mr. Mark mentioned process, and I want to take up on that as far as the consultation aspect of it is concerned. The Province of Alberta, in which I live, was not consulted even though Alberta has 60% of all the parks in all the provinces in the country: Jasper National Park, Banff National Park, Waterton Lakes National Park, Elk Island, and the big, huge park that straddles the Northwest Territories and Alberta. Our minister tried to get meetings with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. They were fobbed off all the time. Even the Prime Minister acknowledged that, yes, there should have been consultation between the provincial authorities and the heritage minister, but that didn't occur.

I'm wondering, Mr. Ireland or Mr. Legget, were you people consulted insofar as being part of the drafting of this particular piece of legislation, given that you represent a huge area plus one of the few parks where there is a substantial community? Were you people consulted at all by the heritage department?

Mr. Richard Ireland: Apart from this formal appearance, I'm not aware that we were consulted in any official capacity. We have ongoing discussions with Parks Canada on a number of issues. Whether that reaches the level of contemplation of somebody drafting the legislation, I have no idea. Certainly we were not asked to comment, apart from the acceptance of our application to appear today, to make any submission on legislation in draft form.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Certainly governance is a major issue with you people, and of course this legislation almost makes it impossible for any kind of local governance.

I'll conclude by saying to the government members that clause 35 should be changed so that communities like Jasper can set up their own local governments. It's absolutely ridiculous for Ottawa to try to furnish any kind of municipal government in terms of fire departments, and these kinds of things, 2,000 miles away. It just doesn't make sense.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Breitkreuz.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): I am very receptive to the remarks that you have made, because if the park communities and the Agency's bureaucracy are to have harmonious relations, there must be closer co-operation and a number of partnerships must be formed, which are things that are not permitted under the bill that is before us. There is no clear indication in the bill that this co-operation and these partnerships can be established. This has already been mentioned and it will no doubt be brought up again.

I would like to speak to the two representatives who are park wardens. I hope that what you have just described to us does not constitute your daily duties seven days per week, because I would change jobs if I were in your shoes.

• 1010

That having been said, I do not think that there is anything in the bill that prevents the Parks Canada Agency from deciding to provide you with a side arm in order to perform your duties. I would like to know why you raise this issue today before the committee. Would you like the bill to specify that you may carry a side arm?

My second question is completely unrelated. You have not mentioned it, although you would probably be in a position to comment on it. We had the pleasure yesterday of meeting with First Nations representatives who told us about some of the difficulties, as well as some of the hopes that they have, with regard to the Parks Canada Agency. You work in the parks and you have perhaps had the opportunity, in the course of your duties, to interact with Aboriginal people. I would like to hear your views, as people working in the field, so that the Committee can gain some understanding from a different angle. Please go ahead.

Ms. Donna Crossland: I will ask my colleague Doug Martin, who is a park warden, to answer your first question and I will then answer your second question.

[English]

Mr. Doug Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the question.

First of all, park wardens are very professional and have been extensively trained. Recruits receive seven weeks at Regina at the RCMP depot training academy in order to build up their skills, and then every five years thereafter they have to attend refresher courses in law enforcement.

We want to have this included within the act, because we believe there's a very strong reluctance within the department to provide park wardens with all of the safety equipment—that being the ultimate one, a side arm—and the training that goes along with it. We have tried various meetings, and I have also mentioned the studies that have been undertaken from 1993 until the present, even the one last fall, which was a union-management one, and there still is the reluctance. Therefore, we're asking that it be included within the legislation that the minister state that park wardens shall be given the full complement of tools for protection. It should not be left up to the department, because the department today is not responding to their own internal studies.

That's why we're asking for all of this. And if you read the first six points, that's what those deal with.

[Translation]

Ms. Donna Crossland: I cannot give a very precise answer to your second question regarding Aboriginal people because I only work as a park warden in the field. However, I can say that we have very good relations in Kouchibouguac Park, and we are thinking of spending more time on educational initiatives, such as explaining the purposes of a national park, which has perhaps been somewhat neglected in the past. I do know that there are Parks Canada Agency employees who are working on finding solutions to the current disputes between Aboriginal people and the Agency.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

The Chair: Not very much.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In that case, I will wait until the next round. Thank you.

The Chair: Agreed, thank you. We will now go to Mr. Bélanger,

[English]

Mr. Shepherd and then Mr. Stoffer, the honourable Mr. Stoffer, and then Mrs. Bulte.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. With regard to the question of consultation, which was raised by our colleagues,

[English]

I wanted to and I will table this for members of the committee. It's a summary of recent public consultation in Alberta, ranging from the Bow Valley study to the Banff National Park management plan; to the OCA review panel to the Waterton Lakes National Park management plan and community plan; to the Town of Jasper community plan; park management plans for Jasper, Kootenay, Yoho, and Waterton Lakes national parks, to the Lake Louise community plan to the ski area guidelines; and so on and so on, involving a series of public meetings, a series of meetings with provincial officials of Alberta.

In response to the suggestion that the minister would not meet with the minister responsible for parks, if you will, her equivalent in Alberta, I will say that the minister has written to meet with them, except that I gather somebody insisted that it be strictly the minister responsible for tourism who meets with her. And that's not in the cards.

So I wanted to make sure that some facts are actually put on the table, and not just innuendo.

• 1015

I've listened carefully on the termination of leases. I'd like to offer some comments on that aspect, and some reactions, if you care.

Let's not forget that the goings-on in Canada of commercial contractual relationships are governed by the laws of the land, and even if Parks Canada wanted to withdraw itself from that, I would argue that unless given specific authority to do so, they couldn't.

Also, on the history, we determined yesterday that not one single residential lease was ever terminated. They've all been renewed. Only in very rare instances were commercial leases terminated, and that was for non-compliance.

Having said that—and we'll look at the legislation, and this committee is thinking no to that—perhaps the legislation should reflect that termination can only be for non-compliance, for instance, or in terms of non-compliance, and if it's done in another context, the notion of compensation would probably have to be addressed.

I'm suggesting that your comments are not unheard here. If that kind of approach were reflected in the act, would your concerns then be dealt with?

Mr. Brad Pierce: Perhaps because I was one of the people who raised it, I think that would go a long way in assisting us.

Our concern is not with regard to the authority of the minister to exercise her rights under the contracts, in which if a party fails to comply with his obligations under the lease then legitimately she may have the right to terminate it. What we are concerned about is the taking of rights arbitrarily, without people having the opportunity to be heard and without the opportunity for them to give their fair case for compensation. So if something along those lines were suggested, I think that would be fine.

On your point on the consultations that came up—because I was one of those unfortunate persons who probably participated in most of those—that is a positive step, and to give credit to Parks Canada, I think the consultations were well run and broadly representative. The issue I have is that in many of those cases the consultations came back to Ottawa and it appears they were ignored.

I'll give you two examples. One was the Banff community plan, where the consultations reflected a certain level of cap on commercial development that was agreed to by all stakeholders in the consultation, which was roughly some 600,000 square feet. When the minister came out and announced what the cap was, it somehow got down to some 300,000 square feet, which was below the consensus agreement.

Another example is the ski area guidelines, a voluntary process by the ski areas in Banff National Park to try to develop some clear environmental guidelines in routine maintenance and facility upgrades at the ski areas. There were 18 months of consultations surrounding that, and when that went to Ottawa and then came back, the caps that were placed on the ski area capacities had nothing to do with what was contained in the consultation.

So to give credit to Parks Canada, there are fair consultations, but something happens when it comes here to Ottawa—no criticism, but—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Perhaps I can try to explain what happens when it comes here to Ottawa.

A consultation is not just limited to parks and the parks communities; it's a wide-ranging consultation across the country. What gets reflected, one might argue, as I intend to, is the will of the overall population of the country to preserve our parks, and not exclusively for the benefit of those in the parks. Mindful of those in the parks...and that's why you have a cap; you're not saying “Thou shalt leave, there's a cap.” There's a will of the population that the parks we've created in this country are going to be kept for future generations ecologically intact. That consultation is very well reflected in what's being proposed here, with all due respect.

Mr. Brad Pierce: As one comment in response, fair enough, and I recognize the national interest, and we support the conservation mandate for the parks. But at the local level, I think the people who are active within the parks and in western Canada feel that we've been heard; it's just that sometimes there seems to be another level of discussion occurring where we don't have the opportunity to respond.

• 1020

That's essentially what we are asking for in our submission, that there be some opportunity and some check and balance so that there is the pause and we can have a fair playing field with other groups, which are frankly quite better resourced than we are and much more effective in this forum than we are.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you.

Mr. Ireland, we've heard various witnesses talk about caps on local communities. I'm not familiar with the process of the community plan, and obviously you are. The reference to maximum square footage seems to be how we do these plans. I would use the example of somebody who has a motel, say, in Jasper of so many square feet. Even within the terminology of a community plan, wouldn't they still have the ability to tear down that motel and maybe build another two or three storeys? Isn't that a possibility to growing the community somehow?

Mr. Richard Ireland: Thank you for the question.

The short answer is no, it's not a possibility, even without the community plan as proposed. As yet we haven't seen the final draft of the community plan. But the existing situation is that there are numerous regulations controlling commercial development and other development in Jasper and, I presume, in other national parks. There are building envelopes defined by a number of different documents. There are architectural control guidelines, which detail the height of a building, the shape, and the amount of lot coverage in relation to the lot size. There are of course commercial zones that control what can be built and where. There are policies in place that require that if you are going to create new commercial square footage, you are required to provide a certain amount of parking. You are also required to provide staff accommodation units for those employees, who are numerically calculated to be added into the community structure because of the development.

In other words, any new development is going to produce some jobs. There will be people to fill those jobs, and those people have to be housed. You have to create new housing in the community before you can have commercial development.

So there are a number of ways that are already in existence to limit commercial development.

The proposal through this legislation and in the draft community plan is that further commercial development be limited by reference to additional square footage. The town committee has clearly taken a position that we support controlled, managed, balanced growth within the community. That's set out in the vision statement, which is in our brief. We've had that position for a long time.

But we do not agree that simply setting a numeric limit is the proper way to go. What we should be doing, we say, is looking at the principles that should govern commercial growth. Let's look at residential density, for instance. If you're going to have any growth, there will be jobs and there will be employees. Let's determine first whether those employees can be housed in the community. Let's see if we have the infrastructure to take care of those individuals. If we don't, you can't have the development.

What we have proposed is a number of principles, including zoning regulations, building envelope requirements, height requirements, and lot coverage requirements, that we can live with and that will preserve our community essentially as it is—that is, a comfortable community with appropriate densities. People are satisfied with the residential densities and don't want to see them increased. That limits—

The Chair: Mr. Ireland.

Mr. Richard Ireland: I'm sorry, sir. It's key. I will wrap up.

Growth management controlled by principles is preferable to growth management controlled numerically. The principles are always better than an arbitrary number.

The Chair: Mr. Ireland, if you want to influence more members, the more who ask questions, the better.

Mr. Shepherd, one brief last question.

• 1025

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I guess this is to the wardens. In the anecdotal information you gave, I thought you said you were accompanied by an armed officer. Maybe I misunderstood that. I don't want to get way off on that tangent, though.

What I do want to do is ask you if there is some kind of study or something that would show the incidence of violence in parks. Are parks a more dangerous place than the general public...? In view of the population densities that travel to parks, is there some compelling argument that says the violence statistics in parks are substantially greater than those for the general population?

Mr. Doug Martin: There have been studies done, not in parks but in other jurisdictions, with resource conservation officers. A study on resource conservation officers was done in the early 1990s in the province of British Columbia. They looked at the contact that resource officers have with people with criminal records. About 65% to 70% of the contacts of resource conservation officers are with people with criminal records. Ordinary policing agencies have about 20% or 25%, because the rest of us are just good people.

We have attempted to encourage parks to undertake such a study, but that study has always been cancelled. It's been on the books for many years and it is never followed through. We have encouraged them to set up a violence occurrence reporting system, and that system is just now partially completed. We at the union are setting up our own in order to record those incidents.

Each one of us can tell stories like Donna's. I was just on a training course in Regina. There have been statements made that there were only a few in the last couple of years. Well, one officer alone had more incidents than were recorded. The frequency really doesn't matter; it only takes one for me to be injured. That's the incidence.

People have studied this to death. Our neighbours to the south, in that armed environment, realize that and they have not come up with any way of mitigating it. There is no way to deal with that, to mitigate it, except to treat the officer and give him the tools and the training in order to encounter it.

As I stated earlier, wardens are very well educated and extremely well trained. They're trained in verbal skills to the highest level. We in our town of Banff receive yearly training, which I provide. I'm also an instructor on the use of defensive tactics. We give better training than all of the RCMP detachments do, but the incidents are still there. We can tell you lots of war stories, but the war stories are not the numbers. It just takes one for me to be injured.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been notified that I've been summoned back to the House. I beg your indulgence for just a few moments for these questions. I'm going to ask my question and then leave, so I hope I'm not appearing rude when I do that.

If I close my eyes for a second when I sit on fisheries and oceans committees, I hear the same concern from coastal communities from coast to coast to coast in this country about the consultation process and the aspect of wanting to be part of the process. That concern is that everything be transparent, that everything be above board, and that your say or your input be at least validated instead of your going to meetings where the decisions are already made and you have your input afterward. It's funny how it's very similar to what you're saying now.

My first question is for the wardens. Does the union feel they have not only the support from the federal government but also the resources in order to do their job effectively? It's sort of a yes-or-no question.

Ms. Donna Crossland: I'll answer that. As a warden in the field, I personally feel I do not have the support of upper-level management within Parks Canada to give me all the defensive tools that are issued to very nearly all other law enforcement agencies ,and certainly the ones that are conservation protection agencies. I believe I deserve the same level of protection as my colleagues who are also peace officers in other agencies.

• 1030

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Your statements are very similar to those made when the customs officers were discussing this, as well as Fisheries and Oceans officers when years ago they had very similar concerns to those you have.

My actual question, though, is for Mr. Ireland.

In regard to what park personnel are doing in terms of their municipal duties and the support staff in day-to-day operations, can you give examples of where, if they were doing other duties in the municipality or people in your legislative aspect were doing some of those responsibilities, in effect, creating a two-to-one saving in terms of fiscal responsibility for the aspects of what the park personnel do and what your community can do as well, so that they can do other duties.... Are there any examples you can provide in that regard?

Mr. Richard Ireland: Yes. I can't tell you whether there's a two-to-one ratio. I don't know what the actual cost savings will be, but in principle I think it's quite apparent.

We have numerous wardens who chase about the town every spring and fall on school days, chasing elk out of the schoolyard. It's a serious problem, but it's a problem that could be managed locally. I believe it's a waste of national park resources to have trained wardens chasing the elk out of the school grounds. If we had bylaw officers or others, we could do that ourselves. They could be better used by Parks Canada helping Parks fulfil its primary mandate, which should not be necessarily protecting school children. We could do that.

I appreciate that time is short. That's one example, and given time, I'm sure I could come up with lots more.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

In terms of decisions, fishing communities are always concerned about the fact that decisions are made from away, with no sort of validation or even input on what's happening in the local community. Can you give examples in Jasper of where decisions were made, say, from Ottawa that really had some serious errors or some sort of misrepresentations in your community?

Mr. Richard Ireland: I can give you one, and I don't know where the decision was made.

A few years ago a decision was made somewhere within Parks Canada that Jasper needed a new fire rescue truck. It was purchased, came to town, and didn't fit in the fire hall. So it sits out in the parking lot. In the wintertime, the jaws of life and other hydraulic tools have to be unloaded from the rescue truck and stored inside the fire hall to keep them warm so they're useful, but then when there's an emergency, they first have to load the truck before they can go out of town to the emergency.

It's a simple thing. Somebody should have realized this truck wouldn't fit in this fire hall, but nobody has their feet on the ground, so it doesn't happen.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As my last question for you, sir, every time I go to a park and I hear people within the park and the communities, they talk about growth. The environmental community right away gets very concerned about the word “growth”, because that usually means the loss of habitat, or a new golf course is coming up, or something of that nature, and eventually the pressure on the park itself and its natural resources becomes greater and greater. What would you say to the environmental community that's out there in terms of the growth and the economics of a community within a park, for example, in that regard, to work more on cooperative efforts in order not only to sustain the ecological diversity of the park, but to maintain the economic value of the park as well?

Mr. Brad Pierce: Thank you for the question.

In response to that—and I can only speak of the western parks—with the management plans and the limits in place within those parks today on commercial development, with perhaps some minor changes, there isn't going to be any more growth. My concern is with the authorities that are being carried forward in this legislation. In the future, we are going to be talking not about growth but what will stay and what will go.

My response to the environmental groups is that there can be some very positive net environmental gain with a more cooperative approach, rather than the approach of saying let's close the commercial facilities because, just because they're commercial, they're bad. There can be some real positive approaches through cooperative partnership efforts in achieving gains to ecological integrity if there is some consideration of the fact that these operations also have to have some economic viability, so that they can continue to provide the type of service that visitors to the park are expecting and, at the same time, provide the highest standard of environmental stewardship. That's how I would respond to that.

• 1035

But in terms of growth, at least relative to the western parks, there isn't going to be any more. It's capped, it's done. I think the problem we're going to face is that when we reach that cap, unfortunately, we will turn those places into Vail and Aspen more quickly than any developer could, and average Canadians will be denied access to the parks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. I hope your address in the House is as eloquent.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As always, my friend. Thanks.

The Chair: We have 20 minutes left and I've requests for five questions, so it speaks for itself that both questions and answers should be brief.

I'll start with Ms. Bulte, then Mr. Wilfert.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for coming today before the committee.

I'd like to direct my questions to Mr. Cashman's colleagues, to the wardens. I have grave concern about guns, and certainly using the American example, I would submit, is not a good example to use. Culture in this country is quite different from that in the United States.

Are you aware of the firearms issue analysis paper that was done in 1999? In it I note that when we look at past assaults, according to this paper in 1998 there were five occurrences of assaults, in 1997 there was one, and in 1996 there were two. The recommended action in almost all the cases was to ensure either that another person accompanied the warden or that there was additional armed support. Why wouldn't additional armed support suffice in this case?

You talk about side arms. I don't know what that is. I'm not that familiar with guns. What type of gun are you talking about? Do you not already have access to shotguns?

Mr. Doug Martin: There are a couple of questions there. I'll answer the last one first.

We have access to shotguns for resource conservation purposes only. That's for wildlife. If there's an injured animal on the side of the road, I can kill that animal or dispatch that animal. I cannot utilize that rifle for law enforcement purposes as a park warden. As a citizen of Canada I can defend myself. So under the Criminal Code, as a peace officer I can defend myself and I could utilize it in that, but Parks Canada policy is, no, I can't for use it for law enforcement purposes.

You're absolutely right, firearms, all of those sorts of things.... The example to the south of us is a bad example—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Bad, very bad.

Mr. Doug Martin: It is a bad example. The incidence of violence in Canada is exactly the same as that in the United States. It's still the same percentages; it's merely the numbers that are different. We, as resource conservation officers, deal with a group of public.... Not all of the people are bad; 90% of them are great people. But on a daily basis in the fall, I deal with individuals who are armed. If I take the statistics that other agencies have undertaken, many of those people are violent and armed.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But what about this study?

Mr. Doug Martin: I also made mention that the violence occurrence reporting system is not in place, so not all of the incidents have been recorded within that document. Very few of them actually have been recorded. That's why we, as a union, have undertaken developing our own, so we could record all of the instances. So there are many that are missed within that document.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have a very short question. Could you also elaborate and keep talking about safety and standard of care of other resource agents? I also happen to be a lawyer—I practised law for 18 years—and I don't know what you're talking about. What do you mean by standard of care?

Mr. Doug Martin: Within the enforcement realm of Canada, the standard of care comes up under the incident management intervention model. It's a new model that is utilized for describing subject behaviour and then corresponding appropriate level of force, as to what an officer can and should prescribe to it. The standard of care of that is all the way up to grievous bodily harm, a person who will inflict grievous bodily harm upon me as an officer. My response to that of course is a defensive weapon of some sort, including a side arm. A side arm is a pistol, in essence; that's what I'm speaking about, or a revolver or a semi-automatic, one of those sorts of things.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: A semi-automatic?

• 1040

Mr. Doug Martin: That's what it's called.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: So it could potentially be a semi-automatic that you're asking for here.

Ms. Donna Crossland: The RCMP are all issued semi-automatic 9-millimetre pistols. So it's a standard. It just means you don't have to cock it before you shoot.

The Chair: Just before we pass on to our next witness, what I really couldn't grasp in your example is that there was an RCMP officer with his side arm, or whatever, automatic. If the justification is that side arms will make a difference, why didn't his side arm make a difference?

Ms. Donna Crossland: That's a very good question, Mr. Chairman.

But in that incident on that day, I was watching Corporal Emery being repeatedly hit in the facial area. There was a very real risk of Corporal Emery being harmed and incapacitated. If he were to have been harmed that day, we had reason to believe from past occurrences that the violence directed toward the two park wardens, me, and my colleague would have been even worse. And we don't have a side arm to protect ourselves. If Corporal Emery had been incapacitated and things had worsened, I'm not at all certain that I could have protected myself or my warden colleague.

The Chair: Why didn't Corporal Emery pull out his side arm? Isn't that the idea of having a side arm?

Ms. Donna Crossland: Of course. According to the incident management model, we cannot use a side arm unless we fear death or grievous bodily harm. We really hesitate. I say “we”, but I'm not in that position as of yet. But I know that armed officers out there hesitate to draw their side arm unless they're really feeling threatened.

I started out in the park warden service, and I don't want a side arm. I really don't. If I could think of another way to mitigate the risks to my safety, I would be asking for the other way, because I don't want a side arm. I don't have one at home. I don't like to hunt. Most of the wardens I work with are not even hunters. They don't own guns. But we know if we're going to protect ourselves, this is the only way that any other agency has been able to find that.

The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ireland, in my past life I was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and had contact with both members of the Jasper town council committee and the one in Banff. I certainly have been familiar with a number of the issues that they have raised. I take it the major issue here really centres on the issue of taxation.

Banff has the ability to tax. Under subclause 10(1), the minister can enter into agreements. You gave an example of parking authority. Even municipalities that in theory have power, delegated of course by the provinces under section 93....

In my own community we had a ridiculous situation where we were getting illegal dumping coming in from other communities. We had to get a private member's bill through the Legislature of Ontario because we didn't have the authority to stop it. It was totally ludicrous. But then we have to recognize that municipal governments aren't recognized as a separate entity in the Constitution, unfortunately.

I'd really like to get the rationale as to your opposition under subclause 10(1). If the minister does say we'll enter into agreements, whether it's dealing with fire protection or whether it's dealing with sewage and water or even parking, I presume, the rationale would seem to be that there have been concerns about the expansion and development in Banff. That model is obviously one...and even the mayor of Banff, in my understanding, supports a development cap and does not agree with continued growth in that regard.

Why does that not satisfy your concerns, Mr. Ireland, if in fact on an issue-to-issue basis that type of agreement can be entered into?

Mr. Richard Ireland: There are two problems.

Clause 35 takes away the ability of the minister to enter into a federal-provincial agreement to establish a municipal government in Jasper. And we understand the concern. We don't want the Banff model. We don't want the Banff experience. Jasper doesn't want to be Banff and has no intention of being Banff. And we don't need the Banff model. But having removed the Banff model as any possibility in clause 35, there is then a vacuum. Subclause 10(1) says the minister can make an agreement, but with whom? There's a vacuum. We have to have some sort of authority somewhere to create something.

• 1045

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Through you, Mr. Chairman, it says:

The minister may enter into agreements with federal and provincial ministers and agencies, local and aboriginal governments and non-governmental organizations...

Mr. Richard Ireland: It does, but who creates the local government? There is a presumption that perhaps the local government will be created pursuant to provincial legislation, but we would like to know that's what is contemplated by the minister in the federal government. Right now, yes, it says the federal minister can enter into an agreement with a local government body, but there's not one, and who's going to create it? Will it just be a shell? What will it have?

We would simply like a recognition. If in fact it is the province that's going to create it and then the minister will enter into an agreement, that would be fine, but we would much more comfortable if we knew that was the intent. It's not clearly expressed in the act.

What we are looking for in really short terms is legislation and wording in this legislation that is in fact enabling, not disabling. If you want to take out the Banff model, fine, but present some alternative. It's not in here. I have further arguments on clause 10, and you can read them in the brief, but it's the purpose matter: for what purpose? It has to be identified.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I appreciate your comments.

If I might, I have one short question to the wardens. When you were talking about the incident that occurred, I was thinking about the RCMP officer as well with his side arm. I hate, as any other Canadian does, the situation where now we have home alarm systems and all these things. We seem to be moving in a direction I'm very uncomfortable with. But I'm also very sympathetic to the fact that you need to carry out your duties and responsibilities.

This is an issue we should examine, probably on a park-by-park basis. I don't know that every park's circumstances would warrant that. It is one we might want to examine. There may be certain situations. Even you talked about the level of incidents. It may be higher in one area than in another; I'm not sure.

As for whether this falls under the Labour Code or whether it should be spelled out here, I don't think it's being spelled out yes or no, but in my own view it should be given more consideration.

I don't think anyone wants to put anyone at risk when they are carrying out their responsibilities. Given the level of some individuals who are going through the parks, those who are taking vacations and happen to be bad, as you say, or transporting things, that is important.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have three questioners for the last ten minutes. Mr. Mark, Mr. de Savoye, and Mr. Limoges have another chance to ask a question. Please be brief.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, going back to my second question in the first round, about the issue of expenditure and collection of taxes, in this case I just want to ask about expenditure. This issue is always debated in all the different townsites across the western parks. In your opinion, how well do parks use your money that they collect?

The Chair: You're smiling. It must be very well.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Richard Ireland: How can I keep this short?

Parks collects and spends. The municipality operates after a fashion. There is little accountability. We have extremely serious infrastructure concerns. The federal government does not operate Jasper, at least, as would other municipalities with capital or recapitalization funds, so infrastructure matters go begging, the expenses continue to rise, and there's not a pool of money there available to deal with infrastructure matters when it's known that of course they will deteriorate and need replacing.

So is the money spent well? Well, it's spent on operational matters, but there's not the sort of community planning we think is necessary and common throughout the country.

Mr. Derek Booth: I can give you one illuminating example. The tourists and the lessees, the stakeholders, are in Riding Mountain National Park seven months of the year. There are a couple of hundred civil servants in there twelve months of the year, and all the lights are on and the services are there for them. The lights don't go out when the majority of the people leave. The money that has been spent on infrastructure, such as sewage in the main area, was primarily to service the government buildings. So we don't have any control over the expenditures.

• 1050

We did do a study when this first came up. The budget that was suggested to us by the parks officials was $800,000 or $900,000, somewhere in that area. Our study revealed that the actual costs were about $400,000. There are a couple of municipalities immediately to the south of Riding Mountain National Park with a bigger population that get by on $300,000 or $400,000 annual budgets.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Pierce, you referred in your brief to the idea of an ombudsman for visitors. Could you explain this in greater detail?

[English]

Mr. Brad Pierce: The concept of a visitors' ombudsman arose because of what we saw as a singular focus by Parks Canada in recent years on the ecological integrity issues, and those are considerable concerns. The difficulty we have is that the resources that have been spent in recent years—and again, unfortunately, I can only speak about the western parks—have been concentrated virtually exclusively on ecological concerns. As a result, issues relating to people's interests in the park, whether it's a restriction on the use of a trail or the removal of a facility and things like that, aren't being fairly considered from the people's side of things. They're being approached from a conservation biologist point of view purely. That's where the visitors' ombudsman, we think, would be helpful in providing that second voice, the sort of voice that says, hey, we have to still consider this interest. And it has to be properly resourced. That's where effectively it comes from.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Merci.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Limoges, you're always very patient.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thanks. I'll be quick. We're nearing the end here.

I know we've spent a lot of time with the issue of side arms, when it's not really an issue before us with this bill, since the decision would be made administratively in any case.

However, I have a background with the municipal government in the city of Windsor—with a population of a couple of hundred thousand, next door to Detroit—and you can imagine that as a member of the police service board for about seven years, I had occasion to deal with many issues of the use of escalation of force and so on. I can tell you, in that context, many police officers who carried a side arm did not have opportunity or thankfully did not have occasion to draw their weapons in sometimes a 30-year career. And that's the good news.

But with escalation of force, up to and including the use of deadly force in some cases, there are definitely occasions where sometimes excessive force is used by police officers as well.

In that context, and there are different schools of thought, I'm wondering what you have to say about the fact that the bad guys who might be in those parks are aware, for example, that our park wardens are unarmed. In my view, should they become aware or become fearful of the fact that park wardens are armed, the danger to park wardens might escalate. In fact, you might have a situation where people will draw upon you simply because they fear that since you have a side arm you could be a danger to them, whereas when they know you don't, it's a lot easier, frankly. Even if they do draw upon you, they just want to get away—they don't want to harm you with that side arm.

I can tell you, in my other life as a bank manager for many years, I had the dubious honour of being robbed at gunpoint twice. Prior to my years at the bank, bankers had side arms hidden away in their desks and so on. We were forbidden to do that years ago, but I can tell you that I was very happy there was no gun in the bank when I was robbed on those occasions, because I would not have wanted that thief to think he was in danger of being drawn upon.

Can you comment on that?

• 1055

Mr. Doug Martin: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd love to comment on that.

Most people in Canada believe we are armed already because we have the outward appearance, with vehicles with red lights that look very police-like. The number of violent incidents with the Department of Fisheries has gone down since they have been armed.

With the new act amendments going through, the increase in penalties is very, very severe. As a result of those severe penalties that are there, the consequences of taking someone before the courts is also severe for enforcement officers such as ourselves, and that's been found in all other jurisdictions as well.

The people going through the parks who are associated with the criminal activities that we're dealing with are also associated with other activities. They're associated with drugs. In the cases I've worked on in poaching, the people who were coming in looking for sheep heads, getting a price of $50,000 for sheep heads, were also dealing with drugs. They had markets on the side for drugs. In one file that I dealt with, we were watching a house, and the Calgary city police took the house down because these same guys who were coming in and looking for our sheep were taking banks down in the city of Calgary.

So the individuals we're dealing with are dealing in many other aspects, and quite honestly, when we interview them afterward, we find they believe we're armed.

There was an incident that occurred in Jasper just recently in which, on the 93 South, a park warden responded to a broken-down vehicle. Thank God he asked another warden to go with him, because when he arrived at the scene there were two individuals who had assaulted a fellow in British Columbia and had robbed seven convenience stores prior to getting to Jasper. They were high on drugs and were going to have a shoot-out with the next police agency that came along. They were on a death vendetta on themselves. They happened to be on the other side of the road—

Mr. Rick Limoges: But in those cases, you of course have—

Mr. Doug Martin: We didn't have firearms.

Mr. Rick Limoges: You don't have firearms, but of course the RCMP or other police agencies are there or can be called in. Certainly you're not going to go into those situations with a smile and a tip of the cap and say “Give yourselves up.”

Mr. Doug Martin: The other point I wanted to respond to is that as park wardens we deal with over 2,700 square miles of Banff National Park, for example. Our backup is a long way away from the Mounties. If I'm in the north end, in the Clearwater area of the national park, it can be days, not just minutes, for backup to be there.

If anybody could look into a crystal ball and say “This situation I'm dealing with is going to go sour”, then I would love to have that crystal ball, because then nobody, no policing agency, no resource conservation agency, would ever get into a violent encounter; they'd know where it was going.

So we can't tell what's going to happen. Things that start out at a very low level escalate incredibly rapidly to things you have no control over.

Ms. Donna Crossland: Sometimes you're in a situation you cannot get out of. You cannot get backup—backup is a long way away.

I found myself last fall on an island by myself. I was just there to do surveillance. The area was not supposed to be a place where poaching was taking place. We knew there was poaching taking place somewhere, but not there. Suddenly I found myself alone, unarmed, with three armed men who spent the entire evening poaching Canada geese.

I don't know if there's anyone in this room who would like to have traded with me that day, but I certainly wasn't comfortable, and I didn't feel I had the defensive tools necessary to make me feel at least reasonably at ease and assured that I could handle that situation.

Those three armed men were later found. They were arrested, and they all pleaded guilty to poaching in the national park and to various firearms offences.

But there are many, many situations out there that we're going to get into when we don't expect it. We can't plan a way out.

Mr. Rick Limoges: But you still wouldn't be drawing your weapon in most of those situations. In fact, probably—

Ms. Donna Crossland: Probably not. Probably never.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I don't see that you would be in a situation where you very frequently would be drawing your weapon.

Ms. Donna Crossland: Wardens have been shot at in my park. They have been shot at.

Mr. Rick Limoges: So does that mean you draw a weapon and shoot back?

Ms. Donna Crossland: It means that you should have the means with which to protect yourself—or a member of the public. If you're camping in my campground and a man is running after you with a campground axe, would you not like to know that I, as a park warden in that campground at that time, could protect you from an aggressor? Because backup...trust me, in my park, the RCMP are going to take maybe 20 minutes, maybe 40 minutes, maybe an hour, or maybe longer.

• 1100

Mr. Rick Limoges: In my case it would more likely be my wife with a pan.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Limoges: Thank you very much for your answers.

The Chair: I think we've lost Mr. Booth for a little while, so I'd like to thank him in his absence.

Thank you very much for coming from a long way, most of you, to appear before us and give us your insights. We really appreciate it very much. Godspeed, and have a good trip back.

The meeting is adjourned.