HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 11, 2000

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Translation]

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is meeting to consider Bill C-27,

[English]

an act respecting the national parks of Canada.

Just before we start, I apologize for this late start, but I had another meeting to attend.

We are distributing the schedule of our work as agreed. There's only one change. You had all agreed to invite the president of the CBC to discuss the regional presence of CBC in light of the latest announcements. There were letters from Mr. Muise and Mrs. Lill, and members have suggested we invite the president. You will see on the schedule that he will come on May 16 between 9 a.m. and 12 a.m. That's the only time that was available. I know it's a very congested schedule, but we have no choice. I think we've gone over it several times, so I won't comment any further. You have it in front of you. Maybe you can be conscious of the number of hours, and I would really appreciate the cooperation of the members because of all the work we have to do.

• 1110

We are especially pleased today to greet—

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order, before we go to that.

The Chair: By all means.

Mr. Mark Muise: I would like us to just discuss, if we can briefly, the letter from Mr. Everest from the Jasper town committee and their request to appear before the committee.

The Chair: We did discuss it—when you were campaigning in Newfoundland.

Mr. Mark Muise: You've answered my question, Mr. Chairman, very well, and with a lot more detail than was probably necessary. But thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Muise, we did discuss the Jasper town committee. You will see from the schedule that they will appear on May 18 instead of May 16. They're quite satisfied with that.

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

The Chair: Thank you.

So we're very pleased today to greet the chair of the Ecological Integrity Panel of the National Parks of Canada,

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Gérin et Ms. Stephanie Cairns, who was a member of the Panel and worked closely with Mr. Gérin. We are very pleased to have them here with us today because they are the ones who really laid the groundwork for Bill C-27, which we are considering.

[English]

I'd like to turn the floor over to Mr. Gérin and tell him how much we appreciate all the work he and his colleagues have done on the integrity panel. It's been a fantastic report. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérin.

Mr. Jacques Gérin (Former Chair, Ecological Integrity Panel of the National Parks of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, Ms. Cairns and I both thank you for the warm welcome you have given us this morning and for honouring us with an invitation to appear before this committee.

We are aware that we are the first witnesses to appear before you on this bill and we are very honoured.

I would first like to briefly review the mandate and the major conclusions of the Ecological Integrity Panel of the National Parks before commenting on Bill C-27 itself.

Our panel was appointed in November 1998 by the Heritage Minister, the Honourable Sheila Copps, with a mandate to recommend the necessary measures to ensure the ecological integrity of the national parks in view of the current situation of the parks, programs and responsibilities of Parks Canada.

[English]

Our mandate was to look at issues across the entire park system and consider the long-term direction of park management. Other panels had been formed before and during. Another panel was formed at approximately the same time to look at the specific issues related to outlying commercial accommodation and activities such as skiing in mountain parks. As you well know, the Banff-Bow Valley task force had reported a bit earlier, after a very careful and detailed two-year study of the Banff-Bow Valley corridor.

[Translation]

After a year of work and meetings, especially with Parks Canada people that we met across the country, but also with many interested people and groups in the various regions, our main conclusion, which was based on the Parks Canada documents and discussions with the people we met, is that our parks are under threat.

External and internal pressures have caused progressive deterioration, more or less severe according to the parts in question, but the situation is the same across the board: the environment is deteriorating, and this trend is on the increase.

• 1115

To keep the parks intact, as required by legislation since 1930, we need to take action. Even in 1930, it was recognized very clearly, in section 4 of the first National Parks Act, that the national parks “must be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”.

Our parks are thus protected areas that the people of Canada have dedicated to future generations. Our future is in our parks and that is what we are trying to protect.

The Panel proposed a large number of very specific recommendations to enable Parks Canada to carry out its mandate more effectively. They can be grouped into a small number of major categories. The first and principal recommendation that we made was that Parks Canada really must make protecting the ecological integrity of the parks its major priority in all its actions and decisions, including the construction of buildings and facilities, visitor services and interpretation activities.

All these things must continue, but the decisions need to be taken using this key criterion: what will the impact be on the future of our parks, and how do we need to protect our parks for the future? That needs to be everyone's business at Parks Canada, which is not always the case. The entire organization will be driven by this priority. For that to happen, it needs to improve its knowledge, simplify and refine its planning processes and work closely and systematically with all its neighbours: communities, industries, individuals, governments and Native people.

As you know, the Minister received our report favourably and committed herself to implementing it, which led to Bill C-27.

[English]

The panel is very supportive of the direction taken by Bill C-27, which enshrines in law several key policy directions and reflects the long-term vision of integrity that Minister Copps has imparted to Parks Canada.

The bill the panel had the opportunity to examine was actually the predecessor to this one, Bill C-70. At that time, in the fall of 1999, we asked the Sierra Legal Defence Fund to review Bill C-70 for us and to provide us with their advice as to how the bill contributed to achieving the priority task of protecting and restoring ecological integrity. The advice of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, as received and accepted by the panel, can be found in appendix C of our report.

The panel chose to focus its own recommendations on a very few topics, to which I will speak. We also consider that the Sierra Legal Defence Fund retain full ownership of their advice and should feel free to speak to it as they wish—and I believe you have invited SLDF to do that.

The panel, in appendix C, makes recommendations concerning seven subject matters in the bill. I will focus on three of those, mainly for the sake of time.

Our intent in these recommendations is to improve the clarity regarding the position of ecological integrity as the first priority for the management of national parks and to improve accountability for achieving that mission. The principal recommendation we make is to affirm centrally the primacy of protecting and restoring ecological integrity.

This has already been part of the law since 1988, but the current wording has at times been interpreted in a very narrow, limited way that we believe restricts the intent of the legislator. Therefore, we recommend a few changes to the wording of subclause 8(2) as it appears now. Again, the point there is to remove any misinterpretations of the intent, which needs to be clear. If you allow me, that's the only article I will read specifically, the only recommendations I will make literally to you.

In subclause 8(2) we would recommend that Parliament make two changes. Replace the words “zoning” and park “management” by saying.... In some places it's not there to be maintained. So it would read: “8.(2) Maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity, including the protection of natural resources, shall be the first priority of the minister in all aspects of management and decision-making of the parks.” Of course, I will leave that wording with the clerk.

• 1120

As I say, it is the one wording the panel wishes to propose to you very specifically, because a lot turns around that. And although the law has been clear since 1930, and was reinforced in 1988, as we went through the country we heard different interpretations. We heard people saying that it says ecological integrity is the priority in zoning and park management, so if we don't have a park management plan, then it doesn't have to be the first priority.

Well, it has to be. The words we put in add no new obligation, no new onus, but they make something very clear. Already that clause has been moved from a purely declaratory clause, as it was in Bill C-70, to an actual action clause that binds the minister, and that is progress. So we recommend those words.

[Translation]

Our second recommendation involves clause 11 of Bill C-27, regarding management plans. These plans are crucially important. That is where the future of each park is set out. Our report devotes a chapter to simplifying and improving the planning process at Parks Canada.

In Appendix C, we recommend more specific language in clause 11 of the bill to ensure that these plans fully meet the requirements under the mandate. The recommendation in our report is quite long. I will not read it in its entirety. I would simply like to call your attention to three paragraphs that we felt were particularly important in the middle of this clause. We say that the plan should include “a statement that maintaining and restoring ecological integrity is the overriding priority of the plan” and “a specific set of goals and measurable objectives”. So, ecological integrity must not remain a vague, general and praise worthy objective. The plan must include “goals and measurable objectives that provide a long-term direction for maintaining and restoring ecological integrity” and, finally, “a comprehensive group of performance targets”.

So we want to use these plans to make ecological integrity a reality, to make it very concrete and objective.

The third recommendation that I would like to bring to your attention deals with the creation of wilderness areas within the parks. This is in clause 14 of the bill. In order to make this happen more quickly, we recommend that the Act require the minister to designate as wilderness areas, as provided for in the legislation, within five years, the areas that have already been identified by Parks Canada as wilderness zones.

So, we are recommending that Parks Canada start with what it has already done and put these zones in the legislation as wilderness areas.

[English]

We propose other amendments in appendix C of our report dealing with regional integration, including proposed changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act—which of course is not the business of this committee, but is relevant to Parks Canada—concerning resource harvest, the Sunshine ski area, and water exports, but the ones I wanted to bring to your attention this morning are the ones the panel felt most strongly about.

[Translation]

In closing, honourable members, without claiming to speak on behalf of the Minister, which I am not doing, I would nonetheless point out that our recommendations are very much in keeping with Bill C-27 as it has been presented to you and also in keeping with these strategic orientations that the Minister has given her portfolio. Adopting these recommendations will make important clarifications and facilitate the work of Parks Canada in carrying out its mandate.

This is what we wanted to present to you, Mr. Chairman. We are both at your disposal to answer any questions.

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

[English]

I'll open the questions.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the committee.

Thank you for the presentation. I was fortunate to have a chance to listen to you during our advance briefing. I'm glad you agree that accountability should be there and that one of your key solutions is about building partnerships—and I noticed you mentioned the aboriginal community.

So on that issue, would you support an amendment to indicate that before decisions are made, certainly on the aspect of community plans, all stakeholders or park users be consulted and have the opportunity to approve these plans?

• 1125

As I indicated to you during that briefing, one of the problems is what happens on paper is the opposite in reality. So to make sure that doesn't continue to happen, someone has to be accountable so that the democratic process does takes place.

As you know, one of the biggest criticisms is of the whole process of decision-making in reference to parks. All Canadians agree that ecologically we need to sustain our parks and make sure they're there for our children and our grandchildren, but the problems arise in the decision-making process. Probably it's not flawed on paper, but certainly in practice it's very flawed.

So would you support that type of amendment?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: If you'd allow me, Mr. Chairman, I would limit my comments on amendments to the bill to those the panel itself has considered and put forward. I am here really as a representative of the panel, as is Mrs. Cairns, and I would rather not comment on amendments the panel did not consider.

But I would say to Mr. Mark that indeed our report deals in detail with the obligation for Parks Canada to work in a very systematic way with its neighbours. In fact we propose that they be given not only policy direction but specific means, including some funding, so that they can come to the table with their neighbours with some actual funds to create partnerships and make these things happen.

Our report says the actions of Parks Canada must be done in conjunction with the communities and the people with whom they live and work, always keeping in mind their prime mandate. One of the things Parks Canada has not always been clear on, sitting at the table with its neighbours, is their prime responsibility: to ensure the long-term health and life of these parks. Yes, they should be open and they should be listening and they should be inviting comments, and they should also be very clear about what their mandate is.

Mr. Inky Mark: Certainly the strength of your report is that it calls for good scientific research, and I welcome that as long overdue. But I still believe that even though you emphasize accountability, partnerships, and working with people, the very thing that is missing most of the time, which creates all these problems, is honesty and integrity. That's a human problem.

So in my opinion, mandating the process, at least ensuring the process takes place, would probably improve the level of honesty and integrity between the partners.

Ms. Stephanie Cairns (Associate for Stratos Inc., Ecological Integrity Panel of the National Parks of Canada): One of the things we spent a lot of time on in our report was looking at the process of management planning in the parks system. We felt there was a need for a lot of streamlining in the management planning, and that by making the core, the heart, of the management planning process focus on the ecological integrity mandate, we would bring a lot of clarity and simplification into management planning.

Partly in response to what you're saying, I'd say the different types of planning done in the parks system have been quite confused, and that has made it very difficult for communities around parks to interact with the management planning process. Simplifying that and also really clarifying what the main objective is of planning I think will alleviate a lot of the frustration we certainly heard from communities as we went across the country, in terms of how they related with the parks agency.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'm very glad to hear your comment about streamlining the process.

I was involved with the process back in about 1995, so I also understand the frustrations people have. I think most people agree the ecological integrity of the parks is first and foremost, but the reality is people also use parks. That's where it gets out of sync. What is the right balance to ensure people do have the opportunity to enjoy the parks?

I would certainly hope your changes will have a huge impact on people's attitudes and perception and the whole culture of decision-making referencing the business of parks.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

Monsieur de Savoye.

• 1130

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Gérin and Ms. Cairns, I am pleased to see you again. Your presentation on your report was very instructive. I have highlighted here one recommendation that seems to me to be fundamental; it says basically that Bill C-27 needs to confirm that ecological integrity is the top priority. Earlier, you presented a certain number of recommendations that emphasize this priority that should be given to ecological integrity.

However, there is one recommendation that I did not expect to see and I did not see. That is what I would like to hear you comment on.

The beginning of the bill sets out definitions. Then, what I call the mission statement comes in clause 4. The mission statement colours the whole of the bill and indicates why these parks exist. This mission statement says:

4. (a) The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment;

That is the primary mission.

subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

That is not the primary mission, it is a secondary mission or a context.

Personally, I have nothing against the parks being enjoyed by people. In fact, that is a good thing. But if we say that that is the priority, the rest becomes secondary. The parks are there so that we can enjoy them and those responsible will do everything necessary to ensure this enjoyment, while hoping that ecological integrity will be maintained.

It seems to me that it should be the opposite way around. The parks are there to ensure the preservation of animal and plant diversity and the integrity of the geophysical environment. In addition, they can be used for the enjoyment of Canadians and Quebeckers. What do you think about that?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: That is obviously the crux of the issue and the debate. Even the wording of the bill and the recommendations that we made on the bill itself clearly show that there is a historical background, beginning with the 1930 Act, and there is also the 1988 amendment. Moreover, we feel that our recommendations on the bill will make it extremely clear that these parks must be protected areas and must be kept intact for the enjoyment of future generations.

Where the wording is concerned, in the Panel's opinion, the objective is achieved with the recommendations we have given you, which are already in the text. What you are offering us is a vision of the parks that emphasizes the fact that, basically, these protected areas are the only areas in Canada that are truly protected and that they account for only 3% of Canada's territory.

There is often concern about those who want to unduly restrict access to parks or commercial activities in parks. People say that there needs to be access and we agree: people need to benefit from and enjoy the parks. But it bears repeating that if these areas that the Parliament of Canada has designated for protection are not protected, it will be serious because there are no other areas in Canada that have this protected status. These are the most highly protected areas in Canada. They are the top of the pyramid in our array of protected areas in Canada and they therefore warrant the greatest attention.

I certainly share your feelings, Mr. de Savoye, when you say that the emphasis must be on our actions, although we might disagree on the words. I would repeat that we feel that the words that we have proposed are adequate, but I share your feelings. It is important to allow a place for people everywhere and we do that, but we may not adequately realize that these are the most highly protected areas in this country and that if they are not protected, there will be no others to replace them.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

• 1135

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Gérin, you said in your report that ecological integrity needed to be confirmed as the top priority. That being the case, if clause 4, which amounts to the mission statement of the bill, clearly stated that the primary mission was in fact to protect this ecological integrity and that the secondary mission was to make these areas accessible for the enjoyment and enrichment of Canadians, would you be unhappy with such a rewording of clause 4?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: I cannot say that I would be unhappy with that kind of wording, because I would be contradicting everything we did over the past year.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you. That answers my question.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick, followed by Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I have a couple of comments on clause 11. I'm going to start off though with agreeing with the first part of Mr. Mark's statement—and I read it in the legislation itself—that transparency and openness are absolutely critical to all stakeholders.

But the second portion, if I heard him properly, was that all stakeholders must be involved in the approvals as well. That would be somewhat conflicting for the minister, because at the end of the day the minister is going to be charged with the responsibility for the ecological integrity, and you're not going to have all stakeholders agreeing when that's the primary motive behind the legislation. So I would suggest it's simply physically impossible to have all stakeholders involved in the approval process.

With regard to your appendix C, in your proposed subclause 11(3) it says:

The Minister shall include in each management plan

(a) provisions for the protection of park values and visitor use...

Do you not see a potential conflict there? You're suggesting the minister is charged with—and it doesn't appear as if there's any lesser importance on either one—“protection of park values and visitor use”.

I would suggest the primary obligation is the protection of the park values and the secondary consideration is visitor use. I'd be interested in your comments on that. Maybe some consideration should be given to “when visitor use is found not to have a negative impact on the present or future ecological integrity of the specific area”.

Mr. Jacques Gérin: We put it this way because there will be visitor use and there should be visitor use. It's very clear. It would be easy to say our report was written by a bunch of ecologists who simply said, “Freeze the people out of the parks and the parks will be okay.” We have not said that, very clearly.

Not only in the negative, not only have we not said there should not be visitors, but in fact we have come out and made some recommendations for how to enhance the interest and the quality of visitor use of the parks, and for how to do it in a way that is not destructive of park values.

So it's not an accident to put them together. This may be partly an answer to the dilemma Mr. de Savoye raised. It's not really one or the other. We're not going to have parks that freeze people out, and we're not going to have parks where visitors are just rampant and are let loose in there. The challenge for Parks Canada is to manage those parks, but bearing very much in mind, as all members have said, that the prime purpose is to protect them forever.

But we really think visitor use is part of park values, and we recommend ways of doing it that are not destructive.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I agree, and I see that visitor use is very much entrenched in the recommendations themselves. I'm not suggesting it has to be one or the other. What I'm saying is you have the two balanced, and that quite simply, as I see it, is not always going to be the case. And I'm not talking about today. We're dealing with a piece of legislation that will be used for generations to come. So do we allow whatever special interest group to work with the minister of the day to ensure there's visitor use because of economic reasons, when in fact there is potential ecological harm during that present time or in future? My only concern is that there doesn't appear to be priority for one over the other. They seem to be balanced.

• 1140

Ms. Stephanie Cairns: I would assume that clause 11 would be interpreted in light of our recommendations for subclause 8(2), where we set out that maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity should be the first priority of the minister in all aspects of management and decision-making of the parks. In subclause 8(2) we clearly establish the hierarchy of priorities, and at the top of that hierarchy is ecological integrity.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That's not what subclause 11(3) says, though.

Ms. Stephanie Cairns: Clause 11 talks about the management plan content, and clause 8 describes what the first priority of the management plan should be.

The Chair: Perhaps one suggestion that could be considered, Mr. Bonwick, is replacing “and” with “including”. Then they would be subject to the park values automatically.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: My own personal interpretation, when I read it, is there is a balance, and there is no commitment to either side. I realize in clause 8 you are very clearly identifying what the minister's priorities are. It was just my own interpretation that they were conflicting with clause 11.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Yes, I have a number of questions.

First is the issue of clarity. I guess when I look at a lot of what we're trying to do, it looks a lot like land use planning that you would see in the private sector, municipalities, and so forth. The question I have is on the definition of some of these things like “wilderness zone”, “preservation zone”, and “wilderness area”. Can we have a clear definition of what the land use functions and restrictions are within those zones and within those preservations?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: In one of the annexes, I think it's annex B, we have a lexicon. It's much needed, indeed, because there are a lot of technical words there. There are two key ones that apply to this current discussion. Parks Canada already has zoning and zoning gradations—different grades of zones within parks for uses allowed in parks—and one of those is wilderness zone. So that exists in Parks Canada policy.

I think Bill C-27 proposes to give the minister power to enshrine those zones—give them force of law. They are called in Bill C-27 des zones désignées. Réserves intégrales is the term used in French in Bill C-27. Those words would now apply under Bill C-27 to those zones the minister so designates.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay. So somewhere, not in here, there are clear definitions.

Mr. Jacques Gérin: Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay. I guess in the schedules it talks about limiting communities within the parks, and it talks in terms of things like square feet. That doesn't make any sense to me. Where is the issue of density? We could take Jasper and turn it into a small town, but somebody could build a 50-storey apartment building there. Do we deal with things like density?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: We certainly haven't, as a panel. As members are aware, another panel called the OCA, Outlining Accommodation Panel, has dealt with that, so I plead totally ignorant to that part of the bill. I'm sorry, I can't help you.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: It's not in the act, though. Are we silent on that issue?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: I don't even know whether it's in the act. I'm sorry I can't enlighten you on that. It just goes beyond what we have looked at, I'm sorry.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay. I guess maybe the final question is on the whole methodology of Parks Canada collecting user fees, essentially, and then using them as part of their budgetary allotment.

• 1145

It seems to me that is a tremendous conflict of interest. I'm surprised you didn't suggest another methodology. Maybe another agency of government could be responsible for collecting those fees, and somehow the funding of Parks Canada would be totally independent of having to drive visitor usage, logging, or whatever other remedial areas of revenue it could generate.

It seems to me we're going forward with an irresolvable conflict, especially in government. As we cut funding to parks, we're asking the parks to be more self-sustaining. At the same time, you're saying the problem with making them self-sustaining is that it's ruining them.

Mr. Jacques Gérin: We addressed that issue in our report and faced it head-on. The policy of budgetary cuts and the imperative of government policy that Parks Canada generate as much revenue as they can has had some negative implications on the management of the parks, in terms of ecological integrity—the point you just made, Mr. Shepherd. It encourages them to give priority to the need to raise revenue. We've addressed that and recommended some specific measures to try to detach this question of revenue generation from the impact it has on the parks.

Ms. Cairns might want to add to that.

Ms. Stephanie Cairns: This was certainly an issue that came up frequently in our hearings, where the official revenue policy of Parks Canada would allow parks to not undertake revenue-raising activities that were in conflict with ecological integrity. Each park does set its own proposed level of revenue generation.

So at a policy level, it seems to not be in conflict. We heard that at the level of practice, people feel a lot of pressure to raise revenue. We've recommended that each revenue-raising activity be looked at very carefully, in terms of not creating this perverse dynamic of increasing visitor pressure on the parks or expanding activities in the parks that would influence ecological integrity.

At the same time, we have very clearly stated that the parks of Canada are there for a common good. They're part of the general heritage of the country, and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to give appropriate levels of allocation to the national parks, so they're able to fulfil that long-term mandate properly, without the pressures of revenue generation.

The Chair: Briefly, Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Wouldn't an ideal situation be for Parks Canada to have no responsibility for revenue generation? I guess I visualize a situation where park management would say they could sustain x number of visitors a year. Somebody else would be responsible for collecting that money, and they would turn it into another agency of government. It would have nothing to do with Parks Canada. Wouldn't that be more of an ideal situation?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: It might be ideal; it could be practically difficult. Theoretically, if Parks Canada did what you just suggested and said, “This is the number of visitors, campers or whatever we can accommodate, and we won't be driven to expand a campsite or add another campsite because we need more revenue,” that would achieve the purpose you are seeking. So by providing clear direction to Parks Canada, and certainly by giving them the funds they need to do the job, it's possible to achieve the result you seek, possibly without the intervention of a third party or a separate agency.

We certainly share your goal, very much so.

The Chair: Mrs. Hardy.

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Thank you.

In your presentation you stressed that the number one priority was the ecological integrity of the park. This act has no definition of what ecological integrity is, so how can the act function and meet that priority without a definition?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: That's an excellent point, Madam Hardy. Of course, we worked on the definition in our report. Members may wish to use the definition the panel adopted and put that in the act. I had not examined that. It hadn't struck me that....

Presumably you do want a definition within the act.

Ms. Louise Hardy: I think that's fairly basic.

Mr. Jacques Gérin: That's an excellent point.

• 1150

Ms. Louise Hardy: The other question I have is on parks. Particularly in the Yukon, park boundaries have been set or discussed and then immediately there's a rush of mining claims staked in the boundaries. The worst one at the moment is in Tombstone Park, where it's part of a land claim on top of that. The department goes ahead with processing these claims as if it's not a park, and in no way can that match up with maintaining any kind of ecological integrity of a park. There's also the really terrible overlap for the first nations people who agreed to let this particular piece of land go to a park because it would be protected. All they wanted was that it be protected, because it really was a sacred place for them, as well as being ecologically sensitive.

So what ideas would you put forward to prevent that kind of thing from happening?

Ms. Stephanie Cairns: In our section on regional integration and planning we talk about the fact that in the park establishment process we need to be bringing more ecological science to the table when the boundaries are being determined. We're recommending that there be specific allocation of funding for the ecological science research that's needed so that in fact that debate can be an equal one.

One of the interesting discussions we had over the course of our consultations was with the mining industry. They complained that the science that was being brought to the table from Parks Canada was not as strong as they would like, because they wanted the basis of real science for those discussions. Because of inadequate resourcing at Parks Canada, there hasn't been enough real science for them to have precisely those types of discussions.

So I don't see that as something with a legislative basis. It's something in the resourcing and management of how park planning happens.

Ms. Louise Hardy: The other point I want to make is on the use of the parks by aboriginal people. There's nothing in it to allow them to gather medicinal herbs or sacred materials. For example, there's a woman in the Yukon, Ann Smith, who does the traditional weaving of the Tlingit people. It just so happens that Kluane Park is in discussion with the Champagne and Aishihik bands on how they can jointly use the park, but what about other first nations? This woman needs, for her weaving, the wool from a particular sheep that ranges in Kluane Park. Traditionally that's where they went to get it. That's where they got the berries for the dyes. These robes are used for their particular ceremonies. I know the museum in B.C. has recently purchased one.

But what should happen, say, in 10 or 20 years when someone decides these people can no longer go into the park and collect the wool that's fallen from the sheep, or the berries for the colours?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: We've made a number of recommendations in that respect in the report. We have a chapter that addresses the role of first nations. We were driven there largely by history. In fact we used the words “from expulsion to co-management”.

Of course what we see in the Yukon and in the new parks in the north is in fact co-management, where first nations are part of the management of the park and their rights to traditional harvesting are recognized. Maybe it doesn't take care of every aspect you're pointing out this morning, Ms. Hardy, but in general they have a role in defining those rights and in utilizing the parks.

The panel on this whole question of aboriginal presence in the parks is really expressing a very strong sense of confidence that reconciliation is possible and that there are common objectives, that people can come around the common objectives of preserving sacred places and utilizing them properly. Parks Canada needs to create some first steps towards that reconciliation. That applies mainly in the south, of course. In the north you already have a situation that is much more optimistic, much more one of working together. But in the south, history is often a strong burden.

So we have said what will come out of that must come out of that process of reconciliation and joint agreement on the objectives of preserving those sacred places. We're really saying both parks and the first nations have to go beyond the strictures of laws and policy. We're not changing the laws here; we're not talking about formal agreements. We're saying do things together that can bring you together around that objective, which will help you work together and will be good for the parks and all people concerned.

• 1155

So it's kind of a very hopeful chapter. In fact, if it can't happen around a national park, I don't know where it can happen in this country.

This is the general tone we've given. We were very influenced. We've given a lot of room in our own thinking to the spiritual view of these parks, which I guess we tend to neglect. That turtle that appears on every page is a sign that we really want to link ourselves back to this earth, where we all come from, and we were very inspired by that in doing this report.

The Chair: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Gérin and Ms. Cairns.

I think we all recognize the importance of ecological integrity and what it means to the parks. You also mention in your report that the federal government work with the provinces, the municipalities, aboriginal leaders, non-governmental organizations, and industry to protect areas through formal agreement. All these groups are mentioned in the bill, basically, except industry. We recognize, as I said earlier, that ecological integrity is important, but the fact still remains that industry or businesses that are in those parks presently are there. Why would they be excluded from the bill? They are part of the whole stakeholder group. Should they not be included?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: I couldn't comment on that specifically, Mr. Muise. I don't think I've looked at the bill as carefully as you have. But certainly the panel itself was very careful to be inclusive in its consultations and to indicate the need to work with and to bring together the people who are responsible for the resource views of this country and the resource transformation of this country around common objectives. We, ourselves, were careful to seek the views, very explicitly, of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association of Canada, and the Canadian Tourism Council, and indeed it was extremely heartening to do so because the message we got from these people was, yes, you'd better make sure these parks are protected. We each have a point of view about how to go about it and what should happen around the parks, but there is no conflict around the same goals.

So as far as the panel is concerned, certainly industry is very much a part of the dialogue, the discussions, and the consultations.

Mr. Mark Muise: Regardless of what position you've come at this problem from, I think in order to negotiate, and not just to negotiate but to come to some kind of understanding, you need all stakeholders. We've seen this in the Atlantic fishery, where it works well when all stakeholders come to the table and come to an agreement, but when some are excluded it creates problems.

Monsieur Gérin, in your report you identify changes in staffing that must be undertaken by Parks Canada. You appear to be looking for scientists and environmentalists, planners of that nature, and it's in line with some of the questioning we heard earlier. Are you suggesting that basically Parks Canada abandon all aspects of recreation when it comes to hiring future employees, or is it just the one side that you want to expand versus the other?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: It's the latter, Mr. Muise, definitely. We don't suggest they abandon recreation and the facilities for visitors and receiving visitors properly. Indeed, part of the experience of any visitor in the park is the ability to work with a guide or somebody who knows the park and guides you through it. We're emphasizing that there have been two great big holes created by the recent budget cuts. One is the lack of knowledge that Parks Canada has about itself and the need to acquire it. Of course, they shouldn't have all these people inside the agency itself. They will go outside to acquire knowledge. They will work with others. But they do need, and they do not have at the moment, the basic scientific resources to do that job, and we recommend that.

The other one is in the interpretation service, which, again, has been a victim of budget cuts and which is an essential part, and that comes back to visitor use. Visitors must have the opportunity to speak with park guides and biologists and so on and learn about the parks, and we make a strong point about that. So it's rebuilding rather than replacing.

Ms. Stephanie Cairns: Also, in our interpretation of science we state strongly that we need more social scientists in the parks. One of the reasons we need more social scientists is that we need more expertise on how to manage visitor use in a way that will have the minimum environmental impact. We believe that will come partly from the natural sciences, but we also need a strong social science stream.

• 1200

Mr. Mark Muise: How serious is the problem of understaffing? Does Parks Canada have the manpower to manage the parks?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: The people who follow us will be better able than we are to speak to that in very precise and specific terms.

But there are two problems. We have been careful to say that ecological integrity is not a problem that will be solved by throwing money at it. It's not a money problem first and foremost; it's an attitude problem, a cultural problem, a problem in orienting the organization. But we have said as explicitly that the organization, the agency, needs additional resources. Without additional resources, it cannot do the job that Parliament has mandated it to do and that we have made explicit in our report.

We have said that the link between those two, the ties, as we have said, are things Parks Canada can and should do now with its current level of resources. Having done those things, it will have a very strong hand for going to Parliament and to Treasury Board and saying, “Give us the additional resources that the panel has recommended.”

Clearly there's a need for additional resources, both in terms of staff and in terms of resource facilities, financial resources, but first and foremost, it's to get the priorities right and have them become pervasive throughout the organization so that the whole organization lives by those priorities. Then, I think, they will have a very strong claim on the additional funds we recommend for them.

Ms. Stephanie Cairns: More specifically, we are very clear that there is an inadequate level of resourcing of scientists within an agency. If the first priority of parks is in fact ecological integrity, you need people there who have that knowledge. We wouldn't run the National Art Gallery without any art curators. We wouldn't run our banks without any financial experts. If the mandate of Parks Canada is in fact biologically based, ecologically based, we need a very strong cohort of people with that type of background and knowledge.

Mr. Mark Muise: Do you know what the minimum increase is in order to at least start implementing some of the changes you're suggesting?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: We've proposed some numbers in our report. It's a gradual thing, over a period of years. We've looked at a five-year budget and at a number of scientists per park, as compared to the Americans. We've looked at the situation in the United States and used that as a point of reference, so we have suggested actual numbers throughout the organization.

The other thing there is that we are very clear that this is not a quick-fix thing. It's not coming in and saying, oh, tomorrow we've turned around and this is it. It's a long-term thing, a direction, but it's something that can start now and that we hope will go on for the long term, with the support of Parliament.

Mr. Mark Muise: Last January I had the opportunity to visit some of the national parks in Alberta. One of the things we kept hearing was “buffer zones”. What it makes me think of is that we have a park with boundaries, so then if you have a buffer zone to protect the line that comes to the boundary.... I mean, do we have buffer zones for buffer zones? Where does it start or where does it stop? Or should we not say that we have a park, that it fits in that square there, so if I'm working over here, I'm okay? Where do you draw the line?

Ms. Stephanie Cairns: One of the things we've learned through conservation biology over the last.... I think knowledge in this area has changed a lot in the last 10 to 20 years, and a lot of the inspiration behind our report is the realization that parks cannot be managed as islands of preservation within, letting anything else happen in the broader landscape. If the parks are going to survive, they will survive in a regional context, where the park itself is the most protected zone. But lands around it also have to be conscious of their role in protecting the higher level of protection within a park.

When we talked to industries, we talked not so much about their activities inside a park, because there are very special rules that already govern that, but about what their willingness would be to cooperate in their activities around parks. We talked with landowners. We talked with provincial governments, with municipal governments around parks, and with industries. We talked about how they could support the park itself.

• 1205

But more than that, if the park is an indicator of the health of the greater ecosystem, and if our parks or the most protected areas are under stress, what does it mean about the land around them? By starting to think about how to protect the parks, we can also start to think about how to have better environmental protection in the greater area.

For instance, when we talk to the Pulp and Paper Association, their interest in parks is very much as benchmarks whereby they can evaluate their activities in relation to what a more highly protected area would be. I think we're on a similar track, in terms of the discussions we had, whereby a lot of industrial sectors are now realizing that they have to improve their environmental management.

Mr. Mark Muise: I understand fully what you're saying and I see the reasoning for it, but I guess what I'm questioning is this: you have a park that is this big, and all the zone around it needs to take the park into consideration in order to make it work, but then the next area after that has an impact, yes, and the fact still remains that I might have some land with some timber on it that I want to harvest, or it might have some oil or minerals. Where does it start and where does it stop?

Mr. Jacques Gérin: We've been very careful not to use the words “buffer zone” precisely to avoid this concept of layers.

But I'll give you some concrete examples of things that are happening at Fundy National Park, an area you know well. There's the Fundy ecosystem and the model forest. People working together—Parks Canada working with its neighbours—have developed forest practices there that allow Irving to earn a living and allow people with private woodlots to cut their forests, but in a way that is not destructive on their part.

There are other examples where there's a sharp line at the park boundary and clear-cutting right to the edge. I can name a number of them. You can't protect an ecosystem that way.

There's another positive example, Pukaskwa, in northern Ontario—Lake Superior—where there was a potential situation like that because Domtar owns rights that come right to the park boundary. But by working with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and with Domtar, the parks people achieved a solution, a working out, that allowed Domtar to exercise its rights, cut its trees, and earn a living, but in a way such that the closer they got to the park the more respectful, I would say, if I can use that word, they were of park values; it became gradation. It was acceptable to the industry and it was acceptable to and helped the park.

That's what we're proposing. I'll use one last example, because I'm conscious of the time, Mr. Chairman. We visited the smallest of all the national parks, St. Lawrence Islands National Park, nine square kilometres in the St. Lawrence River, which is a heavy traffic region, of course, nine square kilometres made up of little islands spread out, which are obviously holiday places. How can you talk about ecological integrity of nine square kilometres all spread out in the middle of the St. Lawrence River? The parks people told us that, yes, they were small, but they're an important stepping stone if you look at a broader region from Algonquin Park to the Adirondacks.

We're working with the people of the region to look at that whole region. It doesn't mean you're going to change the whole region into a park. You're not. It's about the most heavily industrialized part of Canada. Railways and so on are going to continue. But by working with that concept, that park has a vocation for itself; it sees a role and plays a role in helping the health of the whole system. That's what we'd like to see everywhere, that kind of very positive work, and that's what we recommend.

So it's not cut and dried. It's not a buffer zone. It's not “here you do this and there you do that”. It's working with neighbours.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gérin. Once again, we are most grateful to you for appearing here and launching our work on Bill C-27. I think it's symbolic and very important for us that you agreed to do this. Thank you for what you've done with your report. It's a landmark report, and we're most grateful to you and Ms. Cairns for being here today with us.

Mr. Jacques Gérin: Mr. Chairman, may I allow myself one last word, a very personal word?

As you know, I was the deputy minister responsible for Parks Canada way back in the 1970s. One thing that has always impressed me has been the commitment, the dedication, of the people at Parks Canada to that mandate, to that cause that they have and cherish.

• 1210

As we travelled through the country and met with more than 10% of the staff—we met with a very broad group of people from Parks Canada—we found that same dedication, that same commitment, that same spirit, despite the tough times they've been under. I'd like to recognize that and salute it, and I'm sure the work you are doing as members of Parliament will enhance that spirit and will give them some support and confidence.

So thank you very much for inviting us today, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

I should inform members that we're sitting until 1:30 p.m. There will be sandwiches here for members at 1 p.m., not 12:30 p.m.

We'll invite the next witnesses from the Parks Canada Agency to the table.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Will we be getting a copy of Mr. Gérin's presentation?

The Chair: I think that was his presentation, but I will ask him.

[English]

We are pleased to welcome, on behalf of the Parks Canada Agency, some people we know very well already: Mr. Tom Lee, the chief executive officer of the Parks Canada Agency; Mr. Bruce Amos, the director general of national parks; Mrs. Susan Katz, who has participated in our work many times, the director of legislation and policy branch; Mr. Laurent Tremblay,

[Translation]

executive director for the Quebec region and Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière, a lawyer with the Department of Justice working in the Parks Canada Agency.

[English]

Mr. Lee, the floor is yours.

Mr. Tom Lee (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be back with you again. We seem to have a lot of bills that come before this committee, and it's always a pleasure to appear before you.

[Translation]

This morning, we will be leaving two documents with you. The first explains the things that, in the Minister's view, constitute our initial response with respect to ecological integrity. The second briefly explains the bill.

[English]

I did not intend, Mr. Chairman, to initially go through in detail the aspects of the law, but I would like to take a few minutes of opening remarks to perhaps give you some background, not on what but why, a bit of context on why some of the propositions are before you.

You have just heard from the panel on ecological integrity. From the point of view of Parks Canada, it is clear that the panel has identified areas of clear concern and real issues, and some of these are of a legal nature. It is the intention of this bill to make ecological integrity the central lens through which decisions and actions are taken and screened. You have heard from the panel that we may not have quite got it right. If we haven't, then we're quite prepared to work with the panel and the committee to arrive at what is intended, but the initial thing is clearly to make that the lens through which we take our actions.

• 1215

I would indicate that what we are seeking to achieve, in our view, is very consistent with the historic mandate of the act. The issues of use and enjoyment, and having them unimpaired for generations, have to be managed in a way that recognizes that ecological integrity is core. I've tried to indicate, as I have worked with my people and had discussions with the public, that this is not an attempt to make somebody number one and somebody number two. If ecological integrity is number one, it doesn't mean people are number two. If we achieve our ecological integrity mandate, we have made Canadians first as well, because that is what these places were set aside for, for the use and enjoyment, unimpaired forever. The two work together, and I think in the wording we're looking for we want to make that ecological lens the lens through which we govern our actions.

The second element of the bill, which I would like to take a minute to speak to because it is profoundly important, not just to ecological integrity but many other aspects of the national parks, is the issue of limits to growth. I'll give you a very brief background on this. The initial concerns about limits to growth in national parks came to the fore in the 1970s and the 1980s. It may surprise many people to know that before the 1970s, fundamentally, there was no such thing as a management plan for a national park. There were lots of engineering drawings and development plans, but no management plans. That concept came into place then. In the course of the two decades, the 1970s and the 1980s, park agencies, including Parks Canada, gradually brought their own development appetite into line.

As you look at the decade of the 1990s in the national parks, particularly the southern national parks, you will find that there has been virtually no development of additional public facilities. The public facilities of those parks are pretty well at their maximum. The issue now is, how do you manage the numbers of visitors arriving, and perhaps even more visitors, but within the existing footprint?

There's very little growth. The growth that has occurred in the national parks in the last decade has focused very much in terms of capital projects on basically interpretation and education facilities. The same issue did not exist with regard to private development.

We entered the 1990s with still a great appetite for private development, and I think we were astonished, as we looked at the various reviews we conducted in the 1990s, to find out that there was actually a plan in place that would have seen the town of Banff go from a population of 7,000 to 20,000. That's what the vision was that existed—that we might see another million square feet of commercial development in the town of Jasper; that we might see a doubling of the current commercial square footage in outlying commercial areas.

We clearly have concluded, as we work through this, that this is an issue that is fundamental to the security of these parks. We have concluded, without any disrespect for past superintendents, past heads of parks, or past ministers who have been responsible for parks, that for reasons that are obvious, we have not been able to contain the commercial growth with the mechanisms we have at hand.

So the proposals within this bill clearly address the problems about which at some point in time someone has to say stop, and the people who have to say stop are the people who represent Canadians through the Parliament of Canada. This act proposes to deal with that, and provides the mechanisms so that there is not a scenario of incremental growth, which is what we've lived with. There is a scenario of limits to growth. And should someone wish to change those limits, then the Parliament of Canada would become directly involved.

• 1220

As we've worked through that, we have worked with communities, and basically the intention is through community plans to identify the ultimate limits of commercial growth that would occur. I know there have been concerns expressed about how that is done. I would wish to assure the committee that it is done in an open manner, that it is done in consultation with the communities. The minister has in the past year approved the Field community plan, which is one of the new ones. That has been done with complete agreement of the community. They are totally behind it. That plan, for the information of the committee, just won an award by the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects for community planning.

The Waterton plan, which is basically completed but has not yet come to my office for sign-off, is also fully supported by the community. That is the intention. Obviously, as you work through community plans, there are differences. Usually by the time you get to the end there is closure. There is always the possibility that there is a party, or some smaller number of people, who feel their intentions weren't met, but it would not be through a lack of opportunity to do that.

I would draw attention to the enforcement aspects of the bill, because this is also fundamental to the ecological integrity aspect and obviously the enforcement aspect. It is the intention to bring the National Parks Act in line with the range of regulations and penalties that are available to other institutions in Canada with respect to the amount, the severity, and the nature of fines under the act. This is an important aspect. It is an update of this aspect of the act that last occurred in the late 1980s. That aspect is out of date.

I would limit my remarks to those I've given you, Mr. Chairman, and would invite your further direction.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. Are you ready for questions, or are any of your colleagues...?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, I am ready for questions.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Mark.

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

Thank you for coming before the committee. I'm going to begin by saying that the rank and file of the parks across this country do a great job. I say this on the basis that over the past two years I've been travelling in the western parks. I've been involved with pretty well all the stakeholders, whether environmental or, as Mr. Bonwick called some of them, special interest groups. They're not special interest groups, they're park users, and they have a real, valid interest in the parks, in the way the parks operate, their role in the parks, and their own personal use of the parks.

Through my travels I know that a lot of the issues are being dealt with. I agree. It's better certainly over this last summer than it was previous to this. I still find it's too confrontational between the users and the upper administration. Whoever makes the regulations, whoever makes the rules, has the final say on the rules. It's not all that transparent. I can speak from personal experience. Yes, people are notified; yes, people do come to meetings, but it's the process of how it's done. When minutes are doctored to reflect a meeting, that's not accountability or transparency.

So we have a long way to go. It is a people problem. The only criticism I have has to do with the process of consultation, of having documents go back to the stakeholders for discussion before they're tabled as the final document for the community parks plan—these types of things. That's all I ask.

• 1225

If Canadians are first, I believe you need to respect that and also to send that message out to them. If I were to speak to the people who use parks, they would laugh in my face if I told them that yes, the Government of Canada has deemed that Canadians do come first. Well, that hasn't been their experience.

I'm sure our committee will hear from some of our witnesses later on next week about how the parks operate. I don't have a problem with that. In most cases people are pretty reasonable. They want honesty, they want it to be transparent, and they want somebody to be accountable. I thinks that's the big word: accountable.

I believe this bill needs amendments to ensure that people have a say. That's what democracy is all about, and that's what it's built on.

Would you agree that we need to ensure that accountability is in place?

Mr. Tom Lee: What I do agree with is that we should run an open and fair process. You mentioned somebody doctoring minutes. I don't agree with that. If I were made aware of that, I would fix it immediately. If that has happened in some cases, then people should be made accountable. As a person in charge of the organization, I'm prepared to do that. I don't need the law to tell me that. I can do that. It goes with my job.

Mr. Inky Mark: If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, I agree that protecting wildlife and park resources is important, and I bring up the whole issue of park wardens being the primary police force in this country. Over the last 10 years we've had four studies to deal with the issue of the park wardens being permitted to carry side arms in the enforcement of the regulations. In fact, they're the only police force in the country dealing with natural resources that does not carry side arms. It's not even the use of side arms. It's the optics.

This is a changing society. We have as many unbalanced people go through the parks as we do everywhere else in this country. I'm asking you why does—well, that's a negative way of putting it. I'm saying it's necessary for a police force of today to have that right to wear side arms. I want to ask you who makes that decision. Is it your decision? I'm told it's your decision.

Mr. Tom Lee: There are two points to respond to. First of all, this is not a matter that has any direct relationship to the act. It is an administrative matter, and I do have that decision. To put it simply, the people who do enforcement in our parks have 100 years or more of proud service. They do their job well, and I'm terrifically supportive of them.

The issue of whether or not to carry side arms is accompanied by a number of questions. The first one surrounds officer safety and whether it would improve, decrease, or increase officer safety. The information I have is inconclusive.

The second element is my desire to see the majority of our enforcement office time spent on park matters. What has happened over the past decade, or maybe longer, is that in some parks, to an increasing extent—and one could look at the parks with through highways, and the mountain parks are the best examples, or some of the border parks, such as St. Lawrence Islands—and for various reasons park staff are getting engaged, or potentially engaged, in matters that have nothing to do with the protection of the park. I do not wish to see a major part of our time being spent on people who may be conducting criminal activities of whatever nature. That is not the responsibility of my staff. I do not want to see them involved in that. Some of them don't see it that way. It would be fair to say that some of my staff see themselves as full-time police officers in the fullest context of the law. I see our primary job around parks.

• 1230

What I have undertaken to do with staff is to go through on a park by park basis and examine these issues. Where we're getting into a business we shouldn't be in...and I know we are because in some cases, such as in Golden, the RCMP moved out of town, and suddenly we were the closest people with some type of peace officer status, and that can lead to us getting engaged in other issues.

I want to support our officers, and I want to see them focus on their mandate. I want to be ensured that their personal safety is dealt with and that the obligations of Parks Canada as an employer under the Canada Labour Code are met. We are working as hard as we can to do that.

The Chair: Briefly, please.

Mr. Inky Mark: The reason I bring this up is because, as you know, the RCMP are involved in the enforcement of regulations in many parks, including the parks in Manitoba, and I'm told there are diminishing resources for them as well. Especially when major highways go through parks, they feel that wardens should enforce the Highway Traffic Act, which they should do in all the provinces. So it's not only just the wardens, but it also relates to the RCMP in this country.

My last question is this. In various places the bill says you consult the provinces before changes are made. Would you support an amendment to include the municipalities adjacent to the parks?

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm sorry, what kind of changes?

Mr. Inky Mark: Whatever changes are necessary, would you support the inclusion of municipal governments along with provincial governments?

Mr. Tom Lee: We currently are inclusive. I haven't dealt with the specific lines on this in the bill.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's not in there.

Mr. Tom Lee: Okay. Is your point that they are omitted as compared with somebody else?

Mr. Inky Mark: Would you support the inclusion of the wording in the bill?

Mr. Tom Lee: My colleague Bruce has a comment. He may understand the question better than I do.

Mr. Bruce Amos (Director General, National Parks, Parks Canada Agency): If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Mark, the specific reference to approval of the province has to do with the establishment of new national parks on provincial lands and the requirement for a federal-provincial agreement prior to transferring the lands to Canada. Obviously, in that case, there is a constitutional obligation to work with the province, which doesn't necessarily include the municipality, although in many cases the province will involve the municipality in those discussions.

But elsewhere in the bill the references to consultation are quite general. To make it specific, though, there's an obligation on the minister's part to consult at the national, regional, and local levels, and it lists a number of types of activities, which virtually cover all Parks Canada's business. Our sense is that in clause 12 the municipalities are specifically covered by reference to the minister's obligation to consult at the local level. But in that clause the provinces aren't identified, nor are any other parties. It's a broad descriptor.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I assume that some of you may need the earphone, but I see that you do not, Mr. Lee. You understand me fine.

Mr. Lee, your agency will be responsible for implementing the new legislation when it is passed, just as your agency is currently responsible for the present legislation. You know the practical side of things. So, I am not speaking to you as a specialist in the various clauses of the bill, but rather as someone who is competent to oversee the concrete implementation of the Canada Parks legislation.

• 1235

You mentioned earlier that the new bill, like former parks legislation, gave priority to ecological integrity. It should be pointed out, however, that in the past, in 1996, for example, the Auditor General raised certain concerns in a report—I believe it was report no. 31—regarding national parks, particularly the ecological integrity aspect. More recently, about a year ago or a little less, there was concern about the disappearance of certain species in certain parks. It was not due to poaching, but probably the result of visitor pressures.

I imagine that the new bill will give you increased power to ensure better protection of ecological integrity. I would therefore like to hear your practical reaction to certain clauses in the bill. I would like you to tell me how they will be applied on a day-to-day basis, since you probably suspect that I have some concerns on that front.

Sub-section 8(2), for example, states:

(2) Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority of the Minister in the consideration of park zoning and visitor use.

I will call your attention to the phrase: “shall be the first priority of the Minister”. That does not constitute a guarantee. You are going to implement this legislation. You have a Minister. What will happen here? Does this mean that in certain circumstances, ecological integrity will be sacrificed yet again for the sake of zoning or visitor use? What is your reaction to that?

Mr. Tom Lee: The Minister needs to make a decision on the basis of certain things, for example, the preservation of ecological integrity. But that does not exclude certain things. A road, for example, creates certain changes in the ecology, but as I said,

[English]

the lens has to be on ecological integrity,

[Translation]

care must be taken that the ecology is not permanently changed.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I appreciate your concern and I share it. I agree with you that that is what should happen, but that is not what the wording in the bill says. Unless I am mistaken, your agency is there to implement the legislation, not what it should be or could be, but what it is. Here, the Minister has no other obligation than to make this her priority; no guarantees are required. If something other than a road is proposed and if, for some reason, pressure is brought to bear on the Minister and the park zoning must be changed, and ecological integrity is sacrificed, this legislation makes that possible. How do you react to that?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: Laurent, do you wish to speak to that item as well?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay (Executive Director, Quebec Region, Parks Canada Agency): Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think that the question comes down to this: how can park use be changed with a view to maintaining ecological integrity?

It should be mentioned that in the application of the recommendations, certain measures will be used within parks to ensure that protecting resources always supersedes other considerations.

Support capacities within each of the parks will have to be defined in accordance with the identified zones. In some cases, we will also have to try to work during longer seasons rather than concentrate utilisation during overly intensive periods.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I agree with that. I saw the auditor's report and I know that you have anticipated all these measures. I congratulate you for that.

• 1240

What I am saying, is that the law will not give you any authority. Even if you had plans and were aware of the impacts, the legislation would not give you the authority necessary to prevent the Minister from taking any action that goes against ecological integrity. Do I understand the legislation correctly or incorrectly? Do you understand it differently? That is my question.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: In some circumstances, it has happened in the past and it will happen again, certain sections of a park are closed in order to allow nature to take over again and eliminate certain impacts. There are paths, for example, that can be closed. We can stop certain activities under certain circumstances based on the required data. However, given the current zoning, it is possible to act without going as far as completely stopping various activities.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Let's just say that I don't feel that you are answering my question, but I do accept that you are not answering it the way I would have preferred and that you are not compromising yourself. After all, you have to live with this when you go back to your job tomorrow morning. I have another question for you.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose I have a few minutes left.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: We have talked about clause 9:

9. Powers in relation to land use, community planning and development in park communities may not be exercised by a local government body, except as provided in the agreement referred to in section 35.

Something bothers me about this. Parks are sometimes in environments where you don't have to concern yourself with municipal regulations, provincial legislation or the laws of any other public body, but in certain cases, perhaps at the periphery of the parks, at the borders, it is possible that a municipality or even a province may have enacted certain rules. Thus, we have seen, in the case of other departments who occupy territories, that these departments depart from these municipal or provincial regulations. In such situations, the department simply responds that federal law supersedes all that. To heck with the opinion of the provinces, to heck with the opinion of the municipalities which, let me remind you, represent citizens, and full speed ahead. Does this bill give you that power? How do you see this?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière (Legal counsel, Parks Canada Agency): Clause 9, as you quoted it, provides for the following:

9. Powers in relation to land use, community planning and development in park communities may not be exercised by a local government body, except as provided in the agreement referred to in section 35.

Therefore, you can see in this clause that powers must be exercised according to an agreement, the one referred to in section 35.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Excuse me for interrupting you. Section 35 is Banff. That makes Banff an exceptional case as opposed to the general statement in clause 9.

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: That's right.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I am talking about the general application of clause 9.

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: I may not have understood your question. Could you repeat it?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Clause 9 states that local government bodies cannot exercise these powers—and I concur with that—but the counterpart to that is that the Agency, through the force of this legislation, could go against the will of a local government body, with regard to zoning regulations or land use or the way of doing things in a given situation, amongst other things. The local governing body could be a municipality, a school board or even a province. Clause 9 gives the Agency the power to not concern itself with these issues. Is that what I am to understand?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: I don't know if this will answer your question, but this clause applies within national parks. It has nothing to do with local communities located outside the parks.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Let me give you a very simple example. The Port of Montreal placed billboards which are visible from the highways within the limits of its territory, which goes against the regulations of the province of Quebec and of the City of Montreal. The Minister's answer was this: we are in our own backyard and we have the right to do what we want. He is right, but this is extremely disrespectful, to say the least. How do you see this within the Agency?

• 1245

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: From a legal standpoint, I can tell you that the Canada National Parks Act applies within the limits of a park. I may be repeating myself, but I would say that the activities of communities located outside the parks are not regulated by the Canada National Parks Act.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Let me give you an example and I will close with this, Mr. Chairman, because I am hungry. I also want to go and get myself something to eat.

Let me give you the example of the Mingan islands. Let's say that you decide to float a huge advertising balloon over the Mingan islands to promote something or other, but this kind of promotion is prohibited by the regulations of riverside municipalities and that for some or other reason, Parks Canada finds it advantageous to have this kind of promotion. Suppose a shopkeeper on the shore wants to advertise a product, that you find it is profitable for you to do so and does not in any way affect ecological integrity. So you will do this promotion that the shopkeeper could not have done on the shore because municipal regulations would not have given him the right to do so. What do you do then?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: With regard to signs, any road signs are put up in consultation with Quebec. In fact, all our parks are advertised with Quebec.

You raise the case of Mingan. I just came back from Mingan. Their wish is that we add Parks Canada signs to ensure that visitors who come to the Mingan region understand where they are and also understand what direction to take to visit the park. All I can tell you, is that there is very close cooperation with the municipalities since we were very well integrated into the tourist industry, the regional tourism associations and local organizations. They all asked us to identify ourselves clearly so that people who want to visit a park can know exactly where they are.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In this case, wouldn't it be appropriate that the bill be drafted so as to suggest that your Agency will co- ordinate these activities and co-operate with local government bodies, as is the case in many other bills?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: I think that it is implicit in the framework of producing a management plan. That's one of the issues for which we provide for consultation. There are consultations held with local organizations, provinces, municipalities, and that's where we discuss these topics, because they can vary. Municipal regulations can also change. Therefore, at the field level, the local manager has no choice really but to have very good relations with the local community and be in a position to respond adequately to their expectations. If this dialogue is not ongoing, it brings about situations that are very difficult for everyone.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I will have more questions during the next round.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Shepherd....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman....

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a comment. There is an answer to this question that was not given. Would you give me the floor?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We can check later whether I'm right or not, but my perception of this clause is completely different from Mr. de Savoye's. This clause says that the six communities located within parks will not be allowed to do what is done in Banff. We have an agreement with the community of Banff and that is alluded to, but the others will not have the municipal powers normally conferred on such communities. That's the intent of clause 9, if I understand it correctly. Its intent is not at all what you were suggesting.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: However, what I am suggesting is not really avoided or withdrawn elsewhere and it could have been included in clause 9.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. I understand that.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I will have to check whether there are any good ideas around the table, because amendments should be tabled at some point.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes. That's why we are here. But have I understood the intent of clause 9 correctly? Are we to understand that in the sense that I have just described or in the sense that Mr. de Savoye referred to?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Moreover, there does not seem to be any other clause that addresses my concern, except what Mr. Tremblay pointed out. Therefore, perhaps something needs to be clarified somewhere. Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.

• 1250

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'd like to come back to this issue of density. It's not clear to me in the park communities. Is that addressed somewhere? I see reference to square footage. Communities must submit their plans that denote the square footage of commercial areas. Is that the extent of your control over the area?

Mr. Tom Lee: It isn't the extent of the control. Those plans are our plans. So we are in total control. Even in the case of Banff, where the town can prepare its own plan under Alberta municipal laws, the minister has the final approval of that land-use plan. So the minister has total control over the land-use plans. What we're trying to do at the parliamentary level is establish that there has to be a limit to commercial development and have that placed before Parliament without having Parliament trying to decide whether a building on block A is a storey higher than it should be or two storeys too high. Just deal with what is the total maximum for commercial growth that is ever seen for this municipality. The minister can control height.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Let me just seek clarification, because it's obviously put in the act. It talks about maximum square footage, which to me actually means nothing. You talk about density and you talk about the problem of the parks being peopled—I shouldn't put it quite that way, but people usage of the park. Why are we not more focused on the people aspect of community development? I'm missing the point on this. I don't understand why square footage is even a concern. Are you not concerned about the density of these communities?

Mr. Tom Lee: We are, but the commercial growth governs the size of the community. In order to reside in the community, you have to work in the community. If your issue is the overall size and nature of that community, then the amount of commercial square footage is the key that governs that community. The minister has powers to determine where the housing is, where the commercial space is. That is tabled in Parliament as a matter of information. But the amount of square footage, the amount of total commercial development that would ever by permitted in that community, is then fixed by Parliament.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay, a practical example. I own a local motel in Jasper. The motel has 22,000 square feet. The limits of the municipality are fixed. I decide, gee, I'm going to build a four- or five-storey hotel development on that same square footage. What's the process once the minister says you can't do that?

Mr. Tom Lee: It would have to be in conformity with the community plan.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Yes, but it's still the same square footage. It's still using the square footage. I tore down my motel and I built a four- or five-storey apartment building, or whatever. What's wrong with doing that, based on your fixation on square footage of commercial area in a community?

Mr. Tom Lee: Well, there may not be anything wrong with it, if you have only x amount of square feet and it doesn't take the community beyond that. The question is, is it possible within the law to change from, say, a motel to a restaurant? Yes.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: No, no, a motel to a four-storey motel.

Mr. Tom Lee: You could do that. You can move the commercial square footage around, but there's only so much.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I'm not moving it around; I'm moving it up.

Mr. Tom Lee: Okay. You're moving it up. But you're also taking some square footage.... Let's suppose the town was at full development. Then you have to be taking some commercial square footage from somebody else.

• 1255

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Yes, but I can show you all kinds of communities in Europe where by having heavy taxation on square footage, they went straight up. Look at New York City or high-rises in Toronto. They're going up, because the cost of the real estate is very expensive.

You just told me the system doesn't work, that in fact I can increase the density of these towns even though the square footage of the commercial area is fixed. Therefore Jasper can rise to 100,000 people using the same commercial square footage.

Mr. Tom Lee: You can't, because there's only so much square footage.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: You're missing.... I don't agree with you. What you're telling me is you have no control over density in these community plans.

Mr. Tom Lee: We have total control, because the minister has to sign those plans.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: But the plan is simply going to address square footage; it's not going to address density.

Mr. Tom Lee: No, the plan will address that. All we're asking Parliament to do is address the overall amount of growth that is going to be permitted. Leave the minister to decide, through the community plan, whether it's going to be half a storey, two storeys, three storeys, or whatever.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Well, you haven't convinced me that you have control over this. What's an alternative? I don't know. Presumably what you want to say is the town of Jasper can't grow to any more than x population.

Mr. Tom Lee: Well, that's in effect what we do by stating the commercial square footage.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Well, I think you missed it, Tom.

Anyway, the revenue issue I'd like to bring up again. The linkage between Parks Canada collecting revenue and at the same time trying to carry on this ecological integrity commitment seems inconsistent to me. I know you're going to argue that you can say, “We're not going to have another 30,000 visitors to the park this year, because we can't sustain that. It's causing hardship on our ability to maintain the park.” However, at the same time, if it's an issue of giving wage increases to your people or having one more officer or one less officer, it seems to me there's a natural evolution to saying, “Well, we can justify another 40,000 visitors to the park, because it represents another $50,000 or $60,000 worth of revenue.” Don't you think that's an ongoing conflict of interest?

Mr. Tom Lee: On the surface it would appear it could be. Basically you could argue that I would promote large, I don't know, amphitheatres in parks that would attract a lot of people, and we'd take the revenue from them. In practical terms, it hasn't ever worked that way. I'm sure someone could find an exception to the rule, but I have never personally become engaged in a decision around a development in the park where the primary objective, or even an objective in any way, was revenue retention and growth of revenue.

Probably one of the reasons for that is under the Parks Canada Agency Act.... No, the reason for that is that's the way we behave. But under the Parks Canada Agency Act, we are not able to operate for profit, so fundamentally in our operations, the most we could ever do is break even.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I hear what you're saying, but for instance, if you granted a logging right in a park—

Mr. Tom Lee: Well, you can't. Logging is not permitted. It's forbidden by the law.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay. Well, a more practical example then is simply the admission of more visitors to the park. That's a source of revenue for you.

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes. Basically we have to impose and are imposing control.

Let's take a specific example: the West Coast Trail. We have more demand in that than we can ever handle. If the issue were purely revenue, I would go for that revenue and let people in. The fact is that trail is limited to x number of visitors per year and y number of visitors at one time, and I have received a recommendation from the superintendent saying, “Tom, we will need to reduce the number of visitors, because I can't maintain the trail.” That's the way it works, and that's the way it should work.

• 1300

Mr. Alex Shepherd: I just have a vision of going to the Pacific Rim National Park and having this big line-up of cars going into it, but the reality is they were still physically in the area and they were still physically doing their erosion of the ecology.

The other thing is price determination, which bothers me a little bit, because the other way to discriminate against use of the park of course is to raise your entry fees. This flies in the face of the other part of our commitment as parliamentarians, to ensure that all people in Canada, regardless of the amount of money they may have, have access to the parks. How would you address that?

Mr. Tom Lee: First of all, I agree with the general direction you're stating. Accessibility is important, and we must be sure that in our pricing we do not eliminate opportunities for people.

Basically the way we price now as a general principle is that day-use access, which tends to be for the majority of people, is offered at very close to a nominal rate. It costs less than it would to take your family to a picture show, by far. It's a very modest amount.

When you get to other types of services where you're buying something more specific, such as a campsite, we tend to operate with the general market in the vicinity. So we would price ourselves at about the same as you would pay if you were going to a private campground in the local area. That's basically the way we operate.

We do two other things in our pricing policy. Because the local people are so profoundly important to the local area for the benefits of tourism, inviting people in and encouraging people to come and visit us, we offer throughout Canada what we call an early bird discount. If people in the local community want to buy their passes early, they will get a modest discount. And we obviously try to price around the larger family issue so that it's not incremental as you move from a family size of three to seven. We do that.

We recognize this as an important issue, and accessibility and fairness is part of what we try to do. We're definitely not in price competition with anybody.

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have some questions and a couple of requests for information, but before I do that, Mr. Shepherd was focusing on the density issue, and I didn't see a comfort level from the committee that the density issue was addressed.

Hypothetically, if you have in any particular municipality 60,000 square feet of commercial single-floor space on a particular main street, that 60,000 square feet effectively could be abandoned and torn down and a 20-storey building put up that has 60,000 square feet of commercial space. We don't see any provisions in the act to restrict the density of how that square footage is going to be accommodated. So in fact you could have someone—I won't name a developer—trying to create a theme mall of some kind, and they could buy up the block, tear everything down, and put up a 35-storey superstore.

What you might do, for the purposes of the committee, is this. Under the Planning Act provincially and territorially, the municipalities do have jurisdiction over height restrictions and things in that regard concerning the overall planning of the municipality. I don't know if there's anything you can do to add to this to ensure we have some involvement in the decision-making on height as well.

Mr. Tom Lee: We—“we” meaning the minister responsible—have total powers, because the municipal government acts of the province or the territory don't apply. The minister is in total charge of planning, setting Banff aside, which is a special situation.

• 1305

So when that plan comes in, the community plan will specify...and I believe the bill does indicate this is in subclause 33(3), and I quote:

the zoning by-laws referred to in subsection (1) and tabled with it, must include

(a) a description of the land comprising the park community;

(b) a description of the lands comprising the commercial zones of the park community; and

(c) a measure of the maximum floor area permitted within the commercial zones of the park community.

So when you look at a community plan that comes to the minister for approval, that plan is prepared by my staff in consultation with the community and the local government body, if there is one. The plan comes in. It describes all of the height restrictions—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Okay. So there are height restrictions?

Mr. Tom Lee: Absolutely.

And I can be even more helpful. Let me just tell you what's happening in the community plans.

There will no more future commercial growth allowed under the Waterton community plan. All the commercial growth is there.

You can move to the Field plan, which is a plan I indicated has been approved. There wouldn't be a building in there above four storeys. On the Jasper community plan, which is in process, basically, the height restrictions in that community would be of that nature.

There is nothing in any of the community plans that would ever contemplate even 10 storeys.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm wondering, Mr. Lee, if you might be able to provide the clerk with a physical job description for the parks officers. I think that would perhaps help us in securing a certain comfort level in the ability on the enforcement portion of the bill. It would give us a comfort level of what their job specifically is and what their actual responsibilities are versus how they may envision or others may envision their job description.

Secondly, this is more directed to Mr. Mark for the purposes of the committee, or certainly for my own information. He's cast some fairly serious allegations during some of this public consultation process that there were people or a person who doctored the minutes.

I would ask Mr. Mark, for the benefit of Mr. Lee and certainly for the committee, if he could clearly state which meeting that was or which meetings they were, or whether or not this was—

Mr. Inky Mark: A lot of the problems have been dealt with through the community planning process. I'll be more than happy to submit documents to the committee.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you. If this has in fact taken place, I assume that Mr. Lee would like to know of a specific instance so that he has an opportunity to look into it as well. The public consultation process is only as good as how the public perceives it to be good. And if that kind of thing was taking place, I think it's very serious and it certainly merits looking into.

Coupled with this consultative process, in reading subclause 12(1), I'm wondering if there might be consideration given, or whether it's necessary, in your mind, to change one word in this subclause. It's where it says, and I quote:

12.(1) The Minister shall, as appropriate, provide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local levels

The word “appropriate” raises a little concern because “appropriate” is the decision of the minister of the day or the agency of the day. If they deem that perhaps it's not appropriate, then a particular area may be left out of the consultative process.

I'm wondering, through the chair to Mr. Lee, about changing the words to “as applicable”. If a municipality or if a particular sector or stakeholder is involved in some particular way, it's not up to the decision of the minister, where appropriate. The “as applicable” gives it perhaps a little more meat. I'd be curious about your opinion on that.

• 1310

Lastly, could you envision any further wording that might ensure that affected stakeholders, special interest groups—and “special interest groups” to me are not bad words. There are obviously various parties that have special interests in and around these parks. Could you think of any stronger wording that would allow greater opportunity for them to communicate their particular positions?

I'm asking you three or four questions at a time, and I'll get you to respond to them all at once rather than go back and forth.

Could you envision the Government of Canada, more specifically the minister and the agency, potentially having a different view and potentially even a different mandate from a municipality that is located within or beside one of our parks? One could draw an analogy or an example of a town that is economically dependent on mining, for example. Do you feel there's an opportunity or a potential there...where there's going to be a different mandate for that municipality, especially when located off the park, than the minister's responsibilities as set out in subclause 8(2)?

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick, I want to clarify your first or second question about the enforcement and the description of the park wardens. Do you want this only today or are you suggesting Mr. Lee sends us...?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: He likely doesn't have the job description with him.

The Chair: So it is to be sent to the clerk.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: And then the clerk will distribute it.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: In response, I hope I have these questions all covered. On the question of “as appropriate”, “where applicable”, I think that possible change would be worthy of discussion in committee. The wording as it is now is current in the current bill; we haven't made any change in this. You're raising an interesting point. There may be a better wording on that one.

The second question is, is there a way of more explicitly stating the minister's undertakings to consult? Is that a fair summary? No?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Personally, I don't see any way you can expand on it, just short of perhaps a change in that one word. Any way you could put any further onus or responsibility on the minister to make him or her consult any more so than already outlined in here...the issue has been raised that perhaps the consultative process isn't working well enough. I'm questioning whether or not there is some grandiose set of words that would perhaps allow for more. I don't know how it would be, as a simple question.

Mr. Tom Lee: Okay, and that's fair. We've been through this clause before, as you may recall, on the marine conservation bill. Basically, the strength in this clause arises around the word “shall” rather than “may”, so there is an undertaking here.

The other part, and Mr. Mark raised this, is to what extent you can get into defining all of the individual parties: the business community, the environmental community, the fishermen. You may recall when we were doing the conservation bill the best solution was trying to make it inclusive rather than definitive, because with definitive you always end up missing somebody. Those are the choices the committee perhaps has.

On the third point on municipalities, I interpret the question in two parts. One is for municipalities inside parks. There are five of those. There are two communities, Waskesiu and Wasagaming, that don't have any form of local government. For the other communities, is it possible that there would be a difference of view between whatever the elected local body is and the minister? The answer is yes.

As you work through a land use planning program, and I'll use Jasper as an example, where we're going through that and we're working closely with the community and the advisory committee of the local government, it's fair to say that some people in the community have views different from ours and some people in the community have views different from the advisory committee's. What we do is try to work through those.

• 1315

I accept Mr. Mark's challenge. I think the issue is to provide for effective and clear consultation, but ultimately the minister may have to make a decision that is different. The same could apply in a more indirect way to a community outside the park. A community outside the park may want huge developments in the park. Well, the minister may not want huge developments in the park, and she's going to have to make those decisions.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have ten minutes left for Monsieur Bélanger and the last round of questions.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: My point has been addressed. Thank you.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

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

I have two questions. One is a very short one regarding Mr. Bonwick's question. Can you live if we delete the words “as appropriate” from subclause 12(1)? Could you accept that? At the end of the paragraph, it's still the minister who has to consider it relevant.

Mr. Tom Lee: If I recall correctly the past discussions at committee on this item, what we're trying to do in this clause is be as forceful as possible that the minister shall consult on matters that are of significance. On the other hand, I don't believe Parliament would want to put the minister in a position where everything she did would be challenged because she didn't consult. There are so many decisions that a superintendent makes, that I make, that the minister makes on a day-to-day basis. There may have been some consultation if it was required, but there may also have been less consultation.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree with that, but it says at the end of the paragraph, “that the Minister considers relevant”. That's what you just said. So we actually have it twice.

The Chair: I think “relevant” relates to “any other matters”.

Mr. Tom Lee: It does relate. It does clearly state “any other matters”. You're saying “to all matters”.

Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Legislation and Policy Branch, Parks Canada Agency): One point I might add in the reading of this clause is that there's quite a range of initiatives that are covered in subclause 12(1). There are three things, in fact: the establishment of parks, the formulation of management plans, and the development of parks policy.

If a park is engaged in formulating a management plan, the consultation that's appropriate would be at the local and the regional levels. If we're engaged in the development of parks policy, it would be a much broader range of consultation, much more of a national consultation. So there's quite a range of initiatives that are anticipated there. What we anticipate is that the consultation program would be appropriate to the initiative of the issue we're engaged in.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree. You've convinced me.

I have one more question. I want to ask you about the whole issue of airstrips in Banff and Jasper. That's a long outstanding issue.

I just want to preface my remarks so you know that I'm biased as well, like everybody else. I come to this issue from the point of view of being a pilot for 30 years. I fly regularly. In fact, I fly over Riding Mountain almost weekly, probably almost daily during the summer. When I do fly over there, I look for alternative places to land just in case the motor quits, because as you know, it takes probably 20 minutes or more to get over the park. I try to fly above the road. This is the normal way that people fly through the mountains to look for places to land. In fact, commercial flights do the same. The jets we fly way up at 30,000 feet also have alternate airports. So I come to this issue from the point of view of safety.

• 1320

I have visited both airstrips. If it weren't for the windsocks, I'd have a hard time trying to figure out where that airstrip is. It's not Ottawa International. Where I come from, I call it a pasture. I wouldn't call it an airport because that's not what it is. It's just a strip of grass that people use for small aircraft takeoffs and landings.

I know there have been lots of problems with the operation of these in recent history, and it's still not resolved. I understand that. But do you think saving one life for the general aviation public that uses that region of the country, flying back and forth over the mountains, is worthy of keeping those things open?

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm going to clarify, and I hope this helps. We've closed the airports for standard traffic. We have not closed the airports for safety and emergency landings. So the airport is closed. It's not an operating airstrip. It is still available for emergency landings, and we have undertaken to maintain it so that it's not full of great big holes and stuff like that. A modest level of maintenance is taking place. That's how we have handled the safety of people, such as you mentioned.

In the couple of years since it's been closed, I don't think we've had any emergency landings at Banff, but if there were, that's fine. I think we've had two emergency landings at Jasper. I know of at least one, and I think there were two. I know of one because one of them was Parks Canada.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In clause 16(1)(g), it is proposed that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the issuance, amendment and termination of leases, licences of occupation and easements or servitudes. What worries me here is that this affects the ability of a person who signed a lease to appeal. How will this unfold? It seems to me that I read recently that certain occupants had seen their rents double or triple, which did not please them. Is there any possibility for an individual who feels that his rights have been infringed upon to appeal the Minister's decision? Please, try to shed light on this for me.

Mr. Tom Lee: Laurent, could you answer that?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: No, I don't have the documents with me.

Mr. Tom Lee: You are asking us if, when a lease is modified, the individuals concerned have the possibility of....

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Is there any possibility of appeal? Is there someone who can rule or does the Minister have the last word?

Ms. Susan Katz: I think I see two issues in your question. You are asking if, when a park manager cancels a lease, the tenant has the opportunity to contest the decision. I would answer that if the tenant has suffered damages because of the cancellation of the lease, he can always go to court.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: All right, I follow you.

Ms. Susan Katz: The other situation you raised concerns raising rents in communities because of the rather steep increases we anticipate. The Minister has decreed a freeze so that we can examine the situation together with the residents of communities and determine how we can arrive at a better way to bring in....

• 1325

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: My question dealt more specifically with the bill. Does it provide for an appeal procedure that a tenant could have recourse to if his lease is changed or cancelled or if his rent is increased and he is displeased about that? I seem to understand that such an appeal procedure does not exist and that the Minister's decision would prevail. Is that what I should understand, Ms. Katz?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: I will attempt to answer your question. This is a contractual issue between two parties, and unless I am mistaken, the tenant could always go to federal court.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I am very glad to see that it's that complicated and uncertain in your mind. You've answered my question very well and have stated that the bill does not provide for anything in particular that would lead to a conciliation mechanism or some kind of agreement before the whole situation explodes to high heaven. Fine, thank you.

If I have a bit of time left, I will have other questions.

The Chair: One last question.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I know, time moves on. I would like to discuss clause 33(1). Mr. Bélanger, you'd like to say something?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I am no expert in these matters, but I thought I had understood that the question of granting leases was related to the value of the land on which the property was located. The terms and conditions of a land lease are established according to a percentage, a factor of six, for example, of the value attributed to the land, as determined by provincial authorities and periodically revised according to agreements or signed leases. I think we have to be aware of the presence of this factor that influences the increases that Mr. de Savoye referred to. That is why there was intervention of the Minister so that she can mitigate the situation. It was my understanding that according to the mechanisms established and applied, the province has determined, through its land assessment, that the properties were worth so much and therefore the rent was a factor of so much since that was the way the formula was designed. It's not quite as nebulous as Mr. de Savoye would have us believe.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I did not say it was nebulous, on the contrary. What you are explaining to me, my dear Mauril....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like us to all understand what I said, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I want to make sure I understood what you just said, that it is not the bill that settles this, but rather, a regulation that ties the rent to the value of the land as defined by the province. The Parks Canada Agency applies that formula and if the value of the land increases, the lease will obviously be amended accordingly. You are therefore confirming that this bill provides no mechanism for conciliation or adjustment, and it really has to be a gesture on the part of the Minister, like the one we've just seen, that would settle all this.

The question I will ask later and that we can discuss is as follows: should we amend the bill so as to provide for a more appropriate dispute settlement mechanism? It's not always appropriate to bring the Minister into the line of fire when a conflict occurs. Should we anticipate other provisions such as those found in a host of other bills?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: This brings me to my second question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: One last question.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like to ask many questions, but I know I have to stop after this one. Clause 33(1) stipulates that "a community plan for each park community should be tabled in each House of Parliament". This community plan implies many different things. What is the authority, in quotes, of the community over this plan? I know that the community will be invited to provide its input and say what it thinks, but it is not the community that will hold the pencil and draft the plan. Once the plan has been drafted, the community will be able to say that it does not reflect its concerns or all of the concerns that it described. What authority will the community have to oppose a plan that it considers out of line with the concerns it expressed during the consultation?

Mr. Tom Lee: There is no specific authority. It is always up to the Minister to make a final decision. For our part, it is up to us to encourage participation in the planning process.

• 1330

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes, participation is fine, but once you have participated, I see here that the decision is taken by the Minister and the community has no recourse if it is not satisfied with the way the decision was made. I am sorry, but let's state things clearly. How many times have we seen consultations take place and decisions made without taking these consultations into account? Consultations were held just because they had to be. I am uncomfortable with this kind of process and I would have liked to see the Act provide for some arbitration or conciliation mechanism that would mean that at the end of this whole process, all the stakeholders concerned are as satisfied as possible.

Mr. Tom Lee: There is no conciliation process because the final decision is up to the Minister. A community could meet with the Minister, for example, but that's all.

[English]

The Chair: Just before we close—

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I think it is important to point out one fact, if you will allow me. There are six communities and six plans, including one that was finalized and if I understand correctly, has received the support of all the parties. A second plan is proceeding very quickly and seems to be on the same track. It has been proven that it is possible to come to an agreement. In certain cases, there will be differences of opinion and the government reserves the right to require certain conditions in such cases because parks must be accessible to all Canadians. Thank you.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That is exactly right, Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lee, just before we close, I have two very brief questions.

In the case of poaching, which is becoming much more of an issue worldwide, and I believe affects our parks as well, the profits from poaching are extremely lucrative and are increasingly so. Should we look at this? We have fines not exceeding $50,000. Looking at the long term—10 or 20 years—before we change this legislation again, and given inflation and increasing profits derived from poaching, don't you think we should increase that maximum to provide for the future? It's only a maximum.

Mr. Tom Lee: Mr. Chairman, I believe that would be a legitimate consideration of the committee. What I would suggest is that we could leave with you, or get to you right away, the comparable fines that are available in all of the penalty areas for various practising enforcement agencies. We could use that as a basis for discussion.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Secondly, I understand from having participated in a hearing on enforcement on the environment and sustainable development committee that there was some move afoot within the government to try to coordinate the actions of all the various enforcement officers to make them far more coordinated and integrated than they've been. An example is using common intelligence information, which is sometimes lacking, to coordinate, for example, the action of enforcement officers at the borders with those of your agency and Fisheries and Oceans, etc.

Do you know where this is going? I understood there was a term of two years whereby this was going to be put into place.

Mr. Tom Lee: Frankly, I do not know, but I will get back to you on that. I know at the local levels—inter-agency, federal-provincial, and interdepartmental—the coordination is terrific, but I don't know exactly where this point you've raised about intelligence sits, and I will get that information.

The Chair: I understand there was a government task force. I believe Mr. Guimont testified on it from Environment Canada. Any information you can provide us—

Mr. Tom Lee: We'll look. I will find out.

The Chair: Okay.

• 1335

Finally, regarding enforcement, different people have approached us about this question of side arms and such, saying that the main reason, in their view, is the connection with poaching. Do you see a connection?

Mr. Tom Lee: No, I do not. When I look at what types of enforcement we carry out, the majority of our enforcement areas fall into the standard thing. There's drunkenness in particular, sometimes family conflict, minor theft. The majority of our direct stuff in the enforcement field is in that area. That is one of the areas where one could argue that you're in close situations and perhaps a side arm might be useful.

The fact is that we had a review of the six or seven incidents since 1996, where we actually got into force, where there was conflict. I think it was six or seven cases, but my numbers may not be quite correct. In every case, drunkenness was involved. There were no arms held by a third party. In all cases, our people were reinforced by people who had side arms, namely RCMP or local police officers.

So that's the way I see it. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to underestimate that with all of these people there's an at-risk situation inherent in their duties. There's always an element of concern there.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. I'm sorry we have lost our crowd here. We were supposed to finish at 1:30. I hope you appreciate that this is no reflection on your testimony, which has been extremely useful to us.

Thank you very much to you and your colleagues for appearing. Let's hope we proceed forward with speed on the bill. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.