HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 2000

• 1544

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): If members of the Committee are in agreement, I will call the meeting to order. We do not have a quorum, but we can have a general discussion about what is proposed to us, without making any decision before we have a quorum. Are we in agreement?

So I will call to order this meeting on Bill C-27. We will resume our consideration of the bill, but we will not make any decision as long as we do not have a quorum; we are missing one member.

• 1545

Mr. Bélanger, I understand that we had put aside the discussion on clause 2 to allow members of the committee to have a meeting of minds and come up with a definition that everyone would agree with.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Yes. I believe that the text of a definition has been circulated. I am told, and we will see whether that is correct, that opposition parties concur with this definition of ecological integrity. Some members of the committee may have questions that we could clarify. However, if most people seem to agree on that definition, we could adopt it when we have a quorum.

The Chairman: Would opposition members like to make any representations? Go ahead, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): I support that definition. It seems meaningful.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Yes, we've had a chance to look at the proposal, and we're in agreement.

The Chair: That's a big step forward. We'll just put this aside until we have quorum, until we can vote on it.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye, you were also to let us know the status of amendment BQ-10 at clause 16. Do you remember about that?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The information that I needed has been provided to me and I withdraw that amendment.

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

[English]

We'll be able to proceed now with clauses 2 and 16, because that's been cleared. All we wait for is a saviour.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And Mr. Chairman, on clause 2, we'd already covered the definition of a “community plan”, where we're talking about a land use plan. So I presume, the members already having agreed to the concept, this will be fine as well. It is amendment G-1, I believe.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes, we can do that.

[English]

The Chair: I see, apart from this one, there's just one technical amendment about Waterton, which defines the correct name as Waterton Lakes Park. That's amendment G-3.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, that's strictly a technical amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Dealing with clause 1, on the definition of “ecological integrity”, do you need a mover for that as presented here?

The Chair: We can't do anything right now, unfortunately, Rick, until we have quorum. Mark Muise has had to go to a debate in the House, so we are just waiting for one person to get quorum. Then we can do it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chair: We can discuss anything. We can't move or approve anything. It would be null and void.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Might I suggest that whoever shows up here is probably not even going to be a member of this committee and won't be adding a lot to the debate. Perhaps we can just go ahead as if we had quorum, with the exception of not voting on anything, and then at the end we can vote in a block on everything we've decided upon.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: A ratification vote.

Mr. Rick Limoges: A ratification of what we've had a consensus on.

The Chair: Maybe we could discuss amendments G-22 and NDP-14 under clause 25, to start with. Maybe we could look at those.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): BQ-1 under clause 2 was withdrawn?

The Chair: BQ-1 is out.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. And G-3 and G-5?

The Chair: There's a new one too on clause 25, which has just been given to us. I take it it's a government amendment under clause 25. So why don't we look at the amendments under clause 25: G-22, NDP-14, and the new government clause?

• 1550

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: What is the new one, G-22(a)?

The Chair: We'll call this one G-22(a), yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Fine, okay.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Do you need me to clarify NDP-14, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Just a minute. We'll start with G-22, please.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm just looking for where I put the copy of the bill, because that's all I've been using.

The Chair: G-22 is on page 82 of your package.

A voice: But the new government one precedes that one.

The Chair: I understand the new government one precedes, because it refers to subclause 25(1).

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Subclause 25(1) now starts: “No person shall traffic in any wild mammal,” etc. We would add at the beginning the words: “Except as permitted by the regulations,” and then it would continue, “no person shall traffic in any wild mammal, amphibian, reptile,” etc.

This is to meet some of the concerns expressed by Monsieur Laliberte. He may confirm himself whether or not that meets his concerns. This would make sure any legitimate rights that were established or practised before in terms of harvesting natural resources of whatever kind, whether they be wildlife or plants, could go on where it had been discussed and authorized by agreement and treaty rights in effect. So that would meet the concerns expressed in NDP-14, if I understand correctly.

The Chair: Do you agree?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, it certainly reflects the concerns I had raised, and it brings in the same pretext as subclause 26(1). There's an exemption under regulations under that subclause. It brings the two in line.

The Chair: Okay. So could we proceed to G-22, please?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is the next in a series of amendments to the clauses dealing with offences and the fines, or in this case the terms of imprisonment, involved. It's fairly straightforward. It reflects concerns expressed by you, Mr. Chairman, and by other members who appeared in front of the committee.

The Chair: Do we have any discussion or comments about G-22? If not, we'll proceed with NDP-14.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll withdraw that if....

The Chair: Yes, because of the amendment to subclause 25(1).

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chair: So NDP-14 falls away. It's not moved. I take it then that when we have quorum, we'll call the amendments in reverse order: G-22(a) will be G-22, and then G-22 we'll call G-22(a). So we can carry those, and the NDP one will fall away, so we'll be able to deal with clause 25.

Could we talk about G-23 of clause 26?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, that's a continuation in that general trend. Also this matches the species at risk bill in terms of penalties for poaching or trafficking in protected species.

The Chair: Are there any comments on G-23? It's pretty straightforward. Is everybody happy with G-23? Okay. So we will go on to G-24 of clause 27.

• 1555

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Again in the same spirit of reinforcing the rules, or the fines and penalties, this amendment would double the fines imposed to a person found guilty of a second or a third offence, which is in the same line of thinking that has already been approved on three occasions.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

We'll look at NDP-15 under clause 32. You're smiling, Mr. Laliberte. You're not happy with your amendment? You find your amendment funny?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We inflated all the fines and then we doubled them. That's what I was laughing at.

NDP-15 is up?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This issue comes from the ecological integrity panel perspective that parks are not an island. If you look at our amendment, you'll see it deals with not only the issue of depositing in a park but also the issue of depositing into a park. It could be somebody adjacent who is in some way, shape, or form depositing or discharging pollutants. The clause refers to “in a park”, so you would assume the polluter is in the boundaries of a park. The ecological integrity panel wanted to hit home that—

The Chair: So all you've added is two words, “or into”.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, “or into”.

The Chair: The rest of the words are in there.

Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Mr. Chair, I just have a question. Perhaps some of our experts here might be able to say whether or not this change will have the desired effect, or whether more than two words are required to describe that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: May I also say this might indeed exceed the authority, similar to provisions we discussed earlier this morning. The minister's authority does not exceed beyond the borders of the park, and this may very well fall in that category as well. In fact we think it does.

Mr. Rick Limoges: If something comes in from upstream—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There are dispositions in other laws covering that. The authority falls under DFO, for instance.

Mr. Chairman, you're probably more knowledgeable about this than I am.

The Chair: Could we have a comment from one of the lawyers of the ministry?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière (Legal Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage): Yes, absolutely.

The way the National Parks Act is drafted, it applies within the park. Authority relating to activities that occur outside the park has never been included in the jurisdiction of the minister, because this is clearly based on federal property. The whole issue of depositing deleterious substances in water or in streams that constitute fish habitat is dealt with under the Fisheries Act, under the jurisdiction over the fisheries and coastal fisheries.

So this amendment would have the effect of possibly creating or raising issues of constitutionality, and the matter is dealt with elsewhere with another head of power, which is the Fisheries Act.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, would you like to reflect on this or speak to your chief counsel there in the back?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, there seems to be some precedent set in terms of federal and provincial agreements. The 1970 Pacific Rim National Park Agreement between the federal and provincial governments, section 13, states:

Neither party will hereafter, in any way, temporarily or otherwise, alter the flow or impair the quality, or permit the alteration of the flow or the impairing of the quality, of the waters within or flowing through the proposed National Park or of the off-shore waters contiguous thereto, by the construction of works or otherwise.

• 1600

Now, that's the kind of responsibility and conscientiousness I'd like to see in this act. Not only are the parks viewed as islands.... Open it up a bit, so that if there are impeding practices or events happening outside the parks, there is some sort of possibility of pollution cleanup charged under this act, to find the powers that be to make it correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The section of that agreement that the member refers to—he makes the point—also involves, if I'm not mistaken, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has jurisdiction. That is why Parks Canada had to enter into an agreement involving B.C. Forest, DFO, and Parks Canada, because of jurisdiction. So the member is making our argument.

The Chair: If I may, there's a big distinction between an agreement that is specific and has been drawn up between various parties, stating certain things that all the parties agree to, and a generic clause such as this one that you would want to have, which has no boundaries. In other words, we don't know who's going to make an agreement. There's no agreement in place already in the case you cite. It was a specific agreement, where the various bodies agreed to certain terms. With this one, you are really imposing a possibility of an agreement that is not there today. So there's a very different context.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I'm sympathetic to the member's concern with regard to pollution having an impact within the park when the act might have been originated outside of the park. I'm wondering whether or not there could be some jurisdiction for an activity—for example, dumping upstream, which could reasonably be expected to have an impact within the park when you're causing that to occur. I'm wondering whether or not this legislation could have jurisdiction in a case like that, where there is, or ought to have been, a predictable impact on the park by actions that took place outside of the park.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada): I don't see any way it could, although in the case that was just mentioned, it would be our argument that the Fisheries Act in fact applied. You could use the Fisheries Act because it's a water-based thing. Under the Constitution, the federal government has the constitutional ability to operate in that area.

The point that was raised by the member is correct insofar as it contains the right to enter into.... We have the right to enter into an agreement such as Pacific Rim, no problem. We have a number of agreements of that nature. But it has to be reached by two parties. The federal government is not in a position to constitutionally intrude into the resource practices that may be occurring around the boundaries.

I will ask a question of Justice here, because part of the question becomes what other rights might the federal government be able to exercise in here. It strikes me that an individual property owner of any kind would have the right to do something. If somebody is dumping manure into my backyard at home, I think I have mechanisms to protect myself, and I think we must have too.

Lucie, maybe you could just....

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: You're absolutely right. Certainly an argument can be made that.... As I mentioned, the whole jurisdiction is based on federal property ownership, administration, and control of federal land, and that includes of course the authority to protect the federal land. So an argument does exist that it would provide sufficient authority to control deposits of deleterious substances outside of a park that will have an impact in a park.

• 1605

The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm not too clear. Are you agreeing...?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: I can simply say that in my view there is a possible argument to justify regulating as a property owner. Parks Canada being the manager of a federal real property, there's an argument that can be said that they would have the authority or the jurisdiction to control or to try to limit the impact of deposits of deleterious substances outside of a park that would have a serious impact within the park. But very often there are other mechanisms to handle these. As I mentioned, under the Fisheries Act there is a clear authority that deals with deposits of deleterious substances in water bodies throughout Canada.

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: If I may add to that, if you're going to go into the rights of property owners, wouldn't we also have the common-law rights to trespass and nuisance?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Those remedies would be available at the common law. They don't have to be part of the statutory law.

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: Absolutely, the common law, yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's not needed.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): I think this would be a very negative approach to protecting the environment. As our lawyers indicated, there are other vehicles and mechanisms in place. If you did this through legislation, there's no doubt that municipalities and the province would see this as an intrusion into their jurisdiction. I would certainly not support this amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I understand correctly, what has just been said does not undermine what is being proposed. If there is indeed a source of pollution outside the park, Parks Canada, as the owner of the land, is charged with the responsibility of defending its property, but it does not necessarily have the authority to do so. They must rely on the powers given by other acts from other jurisdictions. That is what I was told.

For example, if the problem is caused by a sewer, they would have to deal with the province or the municipality, to hold discussions or negociations and come to an agreement. Ultimately, it could end up in the courts. Giving the power to Parks Canada is not the solution. In my view, that would create a conflictual situation and, indeed, perhaps even a quasi constitutional conflict. That is not the correct way of dealing with this issue.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Clause 32 is in three parts. The first one, the way I interpret it, is more identification. The second one is powers of the superintendent and the minister to direct measures to be taken, and the measures to be taken may well be under DFO.

What I'm trying to get at in subclause 32(1) is that parks are not an island. You cannot close your eyes to anything flowing into the park or anything delivered to the park or anything falling into the park. The minister and the parks have a regime of keepers, scientists, and biologists who would detect these things immediately. It's not starting a legal battle right away; it's just notifying the person who may have accidentally, or whatever his purpose, overlooked the situation or the water flow or anything. Let him know to take measures to prevent the degradation of the natural environment. That's all it is.

The second part is legal issues. If they don't comply with the notice, then you would look under legal statutes. If the Fisheries Act covers you, the minister could direct it to DFO. But I believe the first people to be aware of it would be parks officials if there was any detection of pollutants.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chair, I don't understand what the member is trying to do here. What's the problem he's trying to address that hasn't been raised and addressed by the ecological panel? This was not raised by the ecological panel, as far as I know. It didn't identify this particular “in or into” as a problem, because indeed the responsibilities to act if there is a problem are there, and the mechanisms to do so are inscribed in laws, in the entire legal framework. So what is the problem he's trying to address?

• 1610

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If we go back to Saguenay Marine Park, we discussed the issue of.... More specifically, a land park may be viewed a little differently, but a marine park has “direct into” impacts. If there are flows from elsewhere, with the aluminum factories or the smeltering that takes place further up, this impacts on a marine park. That's what we are saying. When we heard the ecological integrity panel say that parks are not an island, that was our interpretation. This is a specific clause that we chose to bring to clarify that marine parks are not an island, that they are influenced by adjacent lands or adjacent activities. If there's no way to bring out the alarm by the minister or the parks officials, this is the spot.

It's not litigation. Litigation is subclause (2), “the Minister may direct those measures to be taken on behalf of Her Majesty”, which would be in this case, as you said, if you were comfortable with the DFO doing it.... What if it was a land issue? What if it wasn't a water issue? What if it was something that was dumped into the park that was not necessarily water?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: As a matter of fact, water is not the only mode of pollution spreading. Think about acid rain, which is harmful to trees, lakes and fish stocks. They come from as far as the American Midwest. Are we giving the minister a power that he could use to deal with American pollutors? I do not believe that our act, as powerful as it may be, could reach that far.

In a nutshell, to deal with anything that comes from outside the park, we will have to use other means than those that are immediately available to the government, such as Canadian legislation, provincial or municipal, or indirectly available, such as treaties, agreements, etc. This legislation cannot give to the minister responsible for parks such a power that could be used outside the parks. I do not believe so.

I understand the problem. It is a real problem. It is a legitimate concern but we cannot deal with it within the framework of this legislation. The minister will have to deal with it otherwise, using all means at his disposal.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, I think I'm going to make one suggestion to you. I think we've discussed this thing and we understand your point of view completely. You've heard the point of view of all the other members, I think. Why don't we just go back to our work now that we have a quorum. When we get to it, you'll decide whether to move it, and then we'll decide accordingly.

[Translation]

(Clause 2—Definitions)

The Chairman: We will now come back to clause 2 in order to dispose of it by unanimous consent. I hope there is unanimous consent.

[English]

We are back to clause 2, and we will consider the wording proposed in replacement of the previous endorsement.

Are you ready to move it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I so move.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We will now deal with amendment G-1.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's withdrawn. Not G-1, it's G-2. We've already talked about G-1.

The Chair: But we haven't adopted it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, that's all right. It's not withdrawn.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: He's not withdrawing it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's the one on community plan, Mr. Chairman, land use plan. I so move.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We've already done G-2. G-2 is withdrawn in favour of the other one, which we adopted. We now move on to amendment G-3.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I move it.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1615

The Chair: So we will now vote on clause 2.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: What about amendment G-5?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I move amendment G-5. This is to allow for the introduction of a non-derogation clause. There are two sections in that part, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Are you ready for the vote on amendment G-5, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 16—Regulations)

The Chair: We will now go on to amendment G-16, please.

[Translation]

We go to page 55.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. It may be because of a numbering error, but amendment G-5 contained the proposal to create a subclause as well as the non derogation clause. Let us be clear about this. I may have given the impression that the non derogation clause was not contained in it and that its sole object was to create a subclause. However, the goal of the amendment was to create a subclause as well as to add a non derogation clause.

The Chairman: Yes, amendment G-5 has been carried as moved.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In two parts.

The Chairman: In two parts.

Let us look at page 55 and review the whole of what we have been discussing: amendments G-15, G-16 and G-17.

[English]

(Amendments agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Amendment BQ-10 falls away, so we will now call clause 16 as amended.

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 25—Trafficking in wildlife, etc.)

The Chair: I will call first of all for a vote on amendment G-22.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I will call for a vote on amendment G-22(a), the one we had inserted.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 25 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 26—Poaching and trafficking)

The Chair: I will now call amendment G-23, which was discussed previously.

You're moving it, Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 27—Fines cumulative)

The Chair: I will now call amendment G-24.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I so move.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 27 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 28, 29, 30, and 31 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 32—Pollution clean-up)

The Chair: We will now consider amendment NDP-15, which is the clause we were at when we last finished our discussion.

So do you want to move the clause?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I so move.

• 1620

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 32 agreed to)

(On clause 33—Preparation of community plan)

The Chair: I will now look at amendment BQ-14 on page 91.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Amendments BQ-14, BQ-15 and BQ-16 dealt with clause 10.1 that I have eloquently proposed and that you have rejected quite as eloquently. Consequently, the rationale of these amendments has disappeared, Mr. Chairman. I find it unfortunate, but I withdraw them.

The Chairman: Amendments BQ-14, BQ-15 and BQ-16 are withdrawned.

[English]

We'll just call clause 33.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Hang on, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Amendment PC-6 is not moved.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Doesn't our colleague even want it moved?

The Chair: No, he told me he had to go to a debate in the House and he says he doesn't want to move it because he has to be in the House. So that's his choice.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: He doesn't want this to be moved by anyone either.

The Chair: That's what he said.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Okay.

The Chair: You can move it if you want, but that is what he told me.

(Clause 33 agreed to)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What happened to amendment NDP-16?

The Chair: Amendment NDP-16 is a new clause, so we'll call it, for purposes of this, clause 33.1.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is a new clause inserted under the “Park Communities” heading, as follows:

33.1 In relation to community planning matters, the Minister shall take into consideration a decision made by a local government body in existing park communities.

This was a fairly direct word-for-word quotation from a parks community in our area, the Waskesiu, as we related it to Mr. Lee's intervention this morning.

There may have been an oversight. The Banff and the Jasper communities may have been focused too pointedly. I think Waskesiu has evolved into a well-respected, elected body. In signing a memorandum of agreement, the minister agreed that consideration would be made when making decisions. I think this would reflect that any evolution of park communities...that would be a good relationship to have between Parks Canada, the minister and the local government bodies.

The Chair: Excuse me a minute, Mr. Bélanger. I'll point out to members that amendment PC-7, which is not being moved because Mr. Muise is not here, is exactly the same as your new clause, in a different clause though.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if we refer to the two previous clauses, namely clauses 10 and 12, we will see that what Mr. Laliberte is proposing has already been examined and accepted. This clause is not necessary.

• 1625

[English]

The Chair: Do you recall our discussion on this, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, that actually gives him more flexibility, because then they can carry on planning on other things within the plan.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's just that if there is a hesitation to accept a local government body...we had a discussion about that this morning. If there is a friendly amendment required that perhaps local government...just taking the body out would make a difference, would make it more digestible.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is the explanation I gave a little earlier that applies to this one now. There is no desire on the part of the government to see other situations such as Banff, and this kind of clause could lead to this.

The requirement to consult extensively has been dealt with. The ability for the minister of Parks Canada to deal with all kinds of organizations and individuals has been dealt with, the first one in clause 12 and the second one in clause 10. With all due respect, I submit to the committee that what Monsieur Laliberte is trying to accomplish with this has already been dealt with, without compromising the position of not wanting the new Banffs...the new situation such as Banff, which I believe everyone is in agreement with. So I would urge colleagues not to support this amendment.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to make a clarification perhaps in terms of the implementation of the bill. I'd like to direct it to Mr. Lee to clarify it one more time.

I know this morning we dealt with representatives of park communities, and then I know the headstrong perspective that local government bodies are trying to shy away from the situation in Banff. There are some good relationships, as we said in Waskesiu, and there was a letter directed to that effect. There are good relationships, so perhaps we can build on that. It's not directly creating a local government body that's outside the statute. This is the minister taking into consideration a decision made by these bodies. In our case, they're going into an election this August and they're not sure what the mandate would be. How do they campaign with an uncertain dialogue from the minister or position from the minister on what position or role they play?

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: First of all, I would like to state before the committee that Waskesiu does have concerns and they have written to me that this is a terrific organization to work with. They're supportive of the park. They're valued. We want to see that relationship maintained, and we think they're important—we know they're important.

Under clause 12(1), in consideration of the concerns, we added in “and representatives of parks communities”. It doesn't matter whether it's a local government or an advisory group or what it is. We basically have involved them in a range of matters from park policy, regulations, formulation of management plans, land use planning. So our intention here, and I believe we've done it, was to really respond to the concerns raised.

While I believe we've responded, Mr. Laliberte, the one item that causes concern is that it refers to decisions made by local government bodies. I guess the point here is that without going into the Banff model you cannot have decisions taken by local government bodies when the decision-making is the responsibility of the minister. So we have to have a relationship where these people are strong, their participation is respected, but they can't make decisions that only the minister under the bill is permitted to make.

As I say, we value this relationship, and the purpose of the amendments the government proposed in clause 12 was in fact to take care of the concerns that were raised before the committee from a variety of sources.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just trying to address the concerns. I'm trying to play here between the minister and the community. Would you accept perhaps a consideration of a recommendation made by the local government body? If you say “representatives of the community”, some of you may have experience in local government, but you certainly have concerned citizens who could oppose an elected body's recommendation or advice. The minister could listen to a concerned citizen and bypass altogether an elected body that's there.

• 1630

We're trying to say you should take due respect for a local body that's playing a major role in helping Parks Canada in many aspects. I think those local elected bodies play major roles as advocates for the parks.

Mr. Tom Lee: That is covered under that item, Mr. Laliberte. Again, I don't want to step on the good citizens of Waskesiu, but they are not an elected “government body”. They are an elected body that represents the community, but they in no sense have any governance capacity under the standard definition of municipal governments in the province of Saskatchewan.

The Chair: You have started something.

Next are Mr. de Savoye and Mr. Mark. We're away to the races.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I read from amendment G-12, on page 42, amending clause 12. I quote:

[English]

The Minister shall, where applicable, provide opportunities for public participation of the national, regional and local levels, including participation by aboriginal organizations, bodies established under land claims agreement and representatives of park communities, in the development of parks policy and regulations, the establishment of parks, the formulation of management plans, land use planning and development in relation to park communities and any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.

[Translation]

I do not feel that there is a significant difference between what I have just read and the intent of clause 33.1 as proposed by the NDP. Am I wrong in that, Mr. Laliberte?

The Chairman: That is exactly what Mr. Lee has underlined.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Now, if Mr. Laliberte perceives that there is a difference, what exactly is it?

[English]

The Chair: While he is reading this, may I just defer to Mr. Mark for a minute?

Mr. Mark.

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

Believe it or not, this is a key issue in all parks, especially with people living in them. This is what we heard from the people in Jasper. They're an elected body, yet no one seems to hear.

I don't think this amendment forces the minister to do anything other than listen. I believe this amendment is useful because it validates a democratic process. If we believe in a democratic process that occurs everywhere in this country, then let's write it in a manner that is democratic.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That is why clause 12 was amended to make sure everyone was listened to. But I would like to remind Mr. Mark that the people who were here from Jasper, the Jasper town council people themselves, said they did not want to be another Banff. The concern—

Mr. Inky Mark: That's not the point, though.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, it is the point.

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor]...debate, please.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The concern created by Mr. Laliberte's amendment and the PC's amendment is that we're giving credence to decisions of groups that would then believe they were constituted to be a local government body, and that is not to be. Besides, I would remind the member that the people of Jasper decided in a referendum not to seek self-government in the park, so let's respect that.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, do you have a reply to Mr. de Savoye's query? Then I think we should move on. We've had enough debate on this, unless you want to carry on.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The issue is just stating that in community planning matters, the minister shall take into consideration decisions made by local government bodies in existing park communities. This is beneficial to the minister, Parks Canada, and local communities. I have to stand with this clause—it's a good intention.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1635

(On clause 34—Additions to be tabled and referred)

The Chair: We have several amendments. I would like to check with Mr. de Savoye,

[Translation]

because amendment BQ-17 has already been rejected.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: But there was the dinner. Perhaps people have changed their mind. No?

Some honourable members: Ah, ah!

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, if people have not changed their mind, we will withdraw it.

The Chairman: Then there were amendments BQ-18 and BQ-19 that had been agreed on in principle earlier. I suppose that you agree with these amendments.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We have not changed our mind, Mr. Chairman. We accept them.

The Chairman: So we will put the question on amendments BQ-18 and BQ-19.

(Amendments carried)

The Chairman: We now go to amendment PC-7.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a question Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Since the wording of amendment PC-7 is the same as that of amendment NDP-16, could we say that ipso facto amendment PC-7 has been rejected?

The Chairman: But it was not...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can it be introduced at report stage?

The Chairman: It would be difficult to introduce it at report stage because it is exactly in the same form... Listen, it will be up to the speaker to decide.

What do you think, Mr. Toupin?

Mr. Marc Toupin (legislative clerk): It would probably be rejected but it will all depend on the arguments that the member would give and the specific place in the bill where he would suggest his amendment be included. I do not know why he is now suggesting to amend the new clause 34.1 instead of creating a new clause 33. I do not know whether there is a particular reason for it, but let us say that a priori, I do not feel that it would be accepted.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Just for clarification, let us imagine for a moment that our conservative friend finds that at report stage it is impossible for him to reintroduce clause 34.1. It would then be possible for any member of the committee who has not introduced any amendment, but who may have been sympathetic to an amendment that was introduced by another party and rejected, to reintroduce that same amendment in the House.

My view of the situation is that no matter by whom an amendment has been introduced, once the committee has disposed of it, one cannot come back in the House and ask that the House dipose of it once again. An amendment is not introduced by a party, but by a member of the committee. Am I wrong on that?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It is precisely why I was asking the question.

The Chairman: The question remains open. A priori, chances are that it would be rejected because it is the same amendment, word for word, as clause 33.1 that had been proposed. However, we cannot take for granted what will happen in the House. So we will leave things as they are. It is not proposed.

[English]

(Clause 34 as amended agreed to)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Excuse me.

The Chair: Sorry?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: When we were getting an interpretation, you may have assumed it was the same mover for both clauses. It wasn't.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: When I moved ours, we chose 33 as the clause. We knew what we were choosing.

The Chair: I understand that. I think that's quite clear. It's a different clause and a different mover. It's quite clear.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's a different clause.

The Chair: It's a different clause and a different mover. We say, because the intent is the same, there's a chance it won't be accepted, but we don't know. We can't presume on the decisions of the House.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chair: It's not being moved.

(Clauses 35, 36, and 37 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 38—Amendment of park descriptions)

The Chair: Go back to G-26.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

• 1640

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I will ask the officials from Parks Canada to explain the amendment, because it is a very complex situation that I don't know sufficiently well.

The Chairman: If you could first introduce the amendment, they could then comment on it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I will introduce it. It is an amendment that will allow us, when we have concluded an agreement with the parties that are presently involved in the discussion, to remove part of the lands that are included in Riding Mountain National Park. A long time ago, some lands have been included in that park by mistake and we want to have some flexibility in order to remedy the situation when an agreement is reached. That in a nutshell is what amendment G-26 is all about.

[English]

The Chair: Is that clear, or do we want more comments on this, Mr. Amos and Mr. Lee? It's quite clear to me.

Mr. Tom Lee: I would simply say we have discussed this amendment with the band. They understand it and have indicated their support for it.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 39 agreed to)

(On clause 40—Aboriginal resource harvesting)

The Chair: We have an amendment on clause 40. It's BQ-20 on page 104.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, no one is disputing the fact that natives have acquired rights, but there are as well some people who are not natives, who have lived in the lands in question or near by and who have developed a number of particular habits. I believe that these people have the right to be treated with as much consideration as natives, given that their rights are involved. The goal is to extend the scope of clause 40 of the bill to include other local persons.

The Chairman: Any comments? Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is the following. There is no doubt that we do recognize that. Indeed, it is recognized in the bill we have before us. In practice, when non native people have traditional renewable resource harvesting activities, Parks Canada ultimately recognizes this situation after having discussed with the people concerned.

What must be understood is that the intent is to eliminate these activities within one or two generations. There is a desire to reduce the extent of these activities and not to maintain or increase them. Our concern regarding this amendment is that it would have the reverse effect. It could not only maintain these activities but perhaps even increase them. We do not deny that situation; we do recognize it. Indeed, we even agreed to the amendment proposed by our colleague for the Mingan Islands Park. But to include such a practice is quite another thing. I don't know wether members understand where I am coming from, but that would be the effect of this amendment. I don't know that it is the effect that Mr. de Savoye himself desired.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to respond?

The Chairman: By all means.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I am not sure that I have clearly understood or that it was clearly expressed, but what I understood is that, according to the government side and Parks Canada, traditional renewable resource harvesting activities by Natives are to be gradually reduced.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, I am talking about non natives.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Of course these activities will rapidly diminish. They will even disappear if they don't have these rights. What I am saying here is that while it is true that natives have traditions, other people have them as well. It is a good thing to have traditions. There are non native people who have traditions. I am all in favor of respecting traditions. It is important to respect traditions. I do not respect traditions because they are native traditions; I respect traditions simply because they are traditions. If these traditions are those of a non native people, of a non native group of persons, they have in my view the same value as the native traditions. I do not make any discrimination and that is a reason why I am proposing this amendment.

• 1645

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The fact of the matter is that natives have acquired rights. These rights are even recognized in section 35 of the Charter. With this amendment, these rights would be extended to non natives.

Parks Canada recognizes these rights in specific situations of renewable resource harvesting by non natives. I believe we could give examples of this, but even in the Mingan Islands, within two generations, these rights would be extinguished.

In the long term, this allows a better management and use of the parks. It is always done through discussions, negotiations. It can be done. If we were to enshrine in the legislation a clause giving the same rights to non natives, we could no longer do that. That is why we are reluctant to go along.

I will ask people who are involved in the negotiations to make some comments. Pershaps this would help persuade you, Mr. de Savoye, that our reluctance to agree to this amendment is well founded.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Amos.

Mr. Bruce Amos (Director General, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This particular clause, clause 40, refers specifically to park reserves and is intended to clarify that in a park reserve, which you'll recall is an area set aside under the National Parks Act, it is subject to the final negotiations of outstanding comprehensive claims. So a park reserve, by definition, is addressing outstanding issues related to the comprehensive claims of aboriginal people.

Clause 40 is intended to make it clear that in that interim situation when an area is called a park reserve, because the overall comprehensive claim has not yet been resolved, the traditional renewable resource harvesting activities by aboriginal people, who are the ones who have the claim to the territory, may continue. If in a park reserve, or indeed in a new national park, there are activities by non-aboriginal people that it is agreed should continue, those are generally the subject of a federal-provincial agreement at the time of establishment of the area. It's in that form of agreement that those continued uses would be set out, and the authority in the act to regulate those was agreed to earlier in clause 17.

Here we are dealing specifically. When we talk about a reserve, although there may well be instances where there are traditional activities in a reserve by non-aboriginal people, in the case of Mingan—it was before the committee previously—the intention here.... This is a bit of an automatic clause insofar as aboriginal people are concerned. They would automatically, by virtue of this clause, be able to carry on their traditional activities.

Insofar as activities by non-aboriginal people in a similar place, that would be by special agreement in the form of a federal-provincial agreement, and, as I say, regulation-making powers specifically to deal with that kind of situation are already set out. So it could be done, but it would be done in a federal-provincial agreement that normally precedes the establishment of a park or reserve. In fact, if it were done by the order in council route, that agreement would be required.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: Just to make the member aware of one other impact of a proposition, first of all, what he is proposing is possible under the current act. The way to do it, as Bruce has outlined, is as you're negotiating a federal-provincial park agreement, you outline what particular local conditions you want to retain. They are put into the agreement and then you place them in the act. The impact that this proposition would have would be to take out of Parliament's authority the ability to make those exceptions under the act and put the minister in charge of the ability to go around and decide for herself or himself what local uses or pressures they might have to succumb to, and suddenly you would have removed from Parliament the essential authority of maintaining the integrity of the park system. An individual minister, as this is drafted, would have the authority to go into your local park, say, and make a deal concerning uses on traditional things that may or may not have existed.

• 1650

I don't think that is the intent of the member. I'm saying that the parliamentary respect and the integrity of the law is protected, and the exceptions that are required can be made, but those decisions rest with Parliament, not a minister.

The Chair: Monsieur Mark.

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

I certainly support the amendment. The key for me is that if we're going to recognize historic rights for people who traditionally gather and hunt from a geographical base that ended up in a park....

You know, hundreds of years before the parks were established...like the French culture; I don't see the difference between respecting their right versus aboriginal rights. In fact, in my own province, in my own park there, even the taking of the water supply by the municipal government long predated this business of the national park. So I believe those rights should be respected.

If we don't do it this way—and I know the numbers are very small—then what we're doing is basically creating two classes of people. If we really believe in that concept of historical rights, then we should put it in legislation.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: There are two things that hurt my feelings in what I have just heard. One of these things has been said by you, Mr. Lee. You said that we should not give the minister the power to decide on these issues on behalf of non native people. However, we give the minister that power to decide for native people. Are we being more paternalistic toward the natives, or do we not want to give the same protection to non natives?

That bothers me. I have not resolved that enigma. I don't know whether we intend to make it so that the minister may make decisions when natives are concerned, but that the minister's decision may not apply to non natives and that the issue must then be solved by Parliament.

The state of things being such as we know, Mr. Chairman, issues of this kind are not raised in Parliament. These things are settled in short order.

The second thing that hurt me has been said by Mr. Bélanger. He said that for non natives, we would like the traditions to disappear within one or two generations. The traditions of non natives are just as important as the traditions of the natives and deserve the same long term survival.

We don't have the right to tell non natives to forget their traditions because these will gradually disappear within two generations while saying that the traditions of native people are important.

So those two comments have hurt my feelings. I am not a native. I am a non native just as you are, all of you, and I would like non native people who do have traditions, not those who make them up, but who really have traditions that can be verified in history, to benefit from the same protection, because they are human beings just as natives are and their values and traditions are deserving of the same regards. This committee will decide the matter.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I am among those who respect traditions. One of the traditions in common law, under which you and I are living, is that when you sell a property—and the Napoleonic Code has the same provision—or when someone has acquired a property, which is one of the conditions in order to create a park, it is the owner of the land who has the right to decide of its utilization and not the person who has sold it. In the case of a park, when a piece of land is acquired or when there is agreement with a provincial government, the Crown becomes the owner of the land.

• 1655

I said earlier that we tend to reduce, if possible, the recognition of traditions—these are not rights—and the harvesting of renewable resources, as we have done so in some reserves. When successful, we negotiate an agreement in order for this practice to be gradually reduced over a period of time. In some cases, we will not succeed and the practice will continue.

I did not say that we wanted to eliminate the traditions in all cases. That is not what I said. However, among the traditions that we know, one should not forget the rights of the owner. One must not lose sight of the fact that the seller of a property is transfering his right to use the lands in question.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like to clarify something. In the Civil Code, there is the notion of servitude. When you acquire a piece of land, you also acquire the servitude that go along with this piece of land. In my view, traditions are a type of servitude.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: They are negotiated, these servitudes. That is what we are doing.

The Chairman: I believe we will have to listen to Mr. Laliberte's point of view.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm trying to follow where the honourable member is coming from. I agree with him that there are certain traditions that need to be taken into account when creating parks, but the purpose of park reserves is that, because it's under land claim issue, instead of a full-fledged park we put it in a holding pattern in a park reserve. In the meantime, you're allowing aboriginal people to carry on their traditions in there because of the title issue.

But in subclause 17(1), when it goes back to resource harvesting in certain parks, that's not specific to aboriginal; any traditional resource harvesting falls into place. Your amendment brings in the community witness who brought concerns about, for example, hare hunting.

So I don't know how you would.... Is there anything before the parks reserve or in the parks process that involves this dialogue between the province and...? I know subclause 17(2) goes into Canada and the province agreeing, but there's nothing bringing a community or traditional harvesting—

Mr. Tom Lee: The answer is, yes, there is, definitely. The Quebec member was dealing with a particular circumstance that was rather unique in terms of the park establishment process.

When we're creating a park and we're going through the public lands—and ordinarily these are always public lands—and the federal-provincial agreements and so on, these types of local needs are taken into account. That's what Gros Morne is about. That's why that clause is in on Gros Morne. That's what Wapusk is about. That's why that clause is in on Wapusk.

This was a particularly unique situation in the sense that these were private lands and they were purchased outright by the federal government for park purposes, in the case of Mingan. Normally, if this was public land that was being dealt with, the dialogue would have taken place, and there would have already been a clause in this bill taking care of the local situation at Mingan. It isn't there because this was private property purchased outright by the federal government for national park purposes.

I think that is a point at issue, because normally that issue would not arise; it would have been taken care of, à la Wapusk and so on.

I would like to make one final point here. This is very important for me, and I think it is important for the committee. We are not trying to use this bill to create two different types of citizens. We are dealing with the situation where aboriginal people, for historic reasons, have certain rights that may pertain to title. That is a legal right. It's a title right that is completely distinct for the aboriginal people.

The minister does not make that decision on whether they have that right. There's a process whereby that right is retained, and the minister must follow that. This isn't a case of the minister having the right to make decisions about aboriginal rights; he doesn't make those decisions. The courts do, agreements do, and so on. Those are title rights.

The treatment of Canadian citizens in the national park system is entirely consistent throughout Canada with the way citizens are treated in resource uses. Provincial parks are established, and hunting may not be permitted in those parks. That didn't create two different classes of citizens in that case.

• 1700

You know, in the provincial jurisdiction the rights to hunt and fish and so on are distributed among people. Some people are allowed in the...and you're allowed to hunt in certain areas and so on.

So this is not about two classes of people. I want to express to the committee my strongest feelings about that, that there's a difference between rights of title here that deal with aboriginal people. The common practices, how resources are managed throughout Canada, whether it be national parks or provincial parks, and the distribution of rights—well, not rights, really, but privileges—on public lands, are entirely consistent.

I would not want the members to be left with the impression that's being raised at this table, because how we behave in our society is profoundly important to us as Canadians.

The Chair: Briefly, Mr. Amos, so that we can move on, hopefully.

Mr. Bruce Amos: I would just add that in working with local communities and in negotiating new park agreements with provincial governments, what has happened in certain circumstances is that local communities have made known very clearly to the province and to Parks Canada their desire to continue certain activities—and I'm talking non-aboriginal people now—that they've traditionally done in the park area.

So that becomes part of the study, part of the consultations, and has in the past been part of the commitment the federal government has made in order to get a province's concurrence to move ahead with the park.

We have cases where the province will say, yes, we'll agree to this park, but only if certain of these traditional uses by non-aboriginal people are allowed to continue and we've done those negotiations and those consultations, arriving at solutions that are comfortable for the communities, the people practising those activities, the province, and the federal government.

That's generally how we get there. It's not, as clause 40 has suggested, an open door that is an automatic, but it is something that's carefully considered, and often becomes a condition of park establishment agreed to by the province and the federal government.

The Chair: I think we've had a long discussion on this issue. We'll have to make a decision one way or another.

Are you ready for the question on BQ-20?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to)

(On clause 42—Lands set apart)

The Chair: I call BQ-21 and BQ-22 under clause 42.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, these two amendments have the effect of repeating the conditions established earlier in the bill, in clause 5. As we know, clause 5 provides that the governor in council may modify, enlarge or establish a park, providing two conditions are met, namely that there is clear title to or an unincumbered right of ownership, and that the province in which those lands are situated has agreed to their use for that purpose.

Now, clause 42 deals not with parks but with historic sites. Of course, one should imagine that the Governor in Council should be the owner of the site, but one would also imagine that the province would have given consent. I do not understand why the same conditions are not attached to subclause 42(1) as well as to subclause 5(1). There may be an excellent reason that escapes me, but I do not see it. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. I may be drawing your attention to something that nobody had noticed.

[English]

The Chair: Could Mr. Amos or another official explain why this clause is different, in terms of the requirement to consult with and get an agreement from the province, from the main clause in the bill?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of factors behind this.

• 1705

The first point is that there are many national historic sites in Canada that are not owned by the federal government. They are owned by private property owners or by provincial governments; they are owned by third parties. Compare it to the National Parks Act. The National Parks Act is premised on outright ownership by Canada of the lands. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the Historic Sites and Monuments Act are not premised on that basis.

I think the important point to make here—and this is a matter of policy, practice, and also legality—is that when the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is considering a property owned by a third party as a possible designation, they will not make that designation without the agreement of that third party. To do so would get back into intrusion on property rights and so on. So the way the Historic Sites and Monuments Board applies the Historic Sites and Monuments Act is exactly in that nature.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Subclause 42(1) is badly written, Mr. Lee. It says:

[English]

The Governor in Council may set apart any land, the title to which is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada.....

This is not talking about lands belonging to a third party, but lands belonging to Her Majesty.

Could you reorganize your argument to explain subclause 42(1) to me? It's not third parties. It's not in the law.

Mr. Tom Lee: Okay. Maybe I need to clarify your intention...?

I guess what we're saying here is that where the federal government owns title to the land and they choose to designate it as a national historic site, they do not need the agreement of a third party to do so. That's my interpretation.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That's what it says here, but I do not understand why it is not deemed necessary to consult anybody for historic sites, while in the case of a park, the agreement of the province is needed. I am trying to understand why it is required to obtain the agreement of the province to establish a park, as is provided for in subclause 5(1), while no agreement is necessary to designate a historic site which, between you and me, could have the same dimension as a park.

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: The background to this is very much, as I think has been described, that historically the creation of national parks has involved the utilization of public lands under jurisdiction of the province. Probably the only exception to that is in fact Mingan, and one could say as well that in the territories a different process was used.

The consultations are required because provincial jurisdiction and provincial rights are involved. There are no provincial rights or jurisdictions involved in terms of federal land and its designation per se. If we owned federal lands for a national park in whatever province, presumably we have the right to decide what that land should be used for. The fact is, we don't generally own it, so we require the consultation with the province. It's really quite different.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, we all live in a municipality where there is likely to be a historic site. That historic site could be just a house, but it could also be a huge piece of land that has been the theatre of some battle. It could be situated in Manitoba, in British Columbia, in Quebec or in Ontario. It could mean simply that Parks Canada acquires the land on behalf of Her Majesty. No one is really aware of the transaction since it is a transaction between an individual and Parks Canada. And the day after, Parks Canada could decide that it is a historic site. That site in your neighbourhood that was being ignored will now be developed without you, the province, the municipality, the third neighbour, the second neighbour and the next-door neighbour having any say whatsoever in the matter.

The clause is a good one, but I believe we should specify that the government of the province where these lands are situated—since the historic sites referred to in this piece of legislation are in fact lands—must agree to their use for that purpose. We cannot just say, Mr. Chairman, that the house located next to yours is a historic site and then bang, a parking is built and you are invaded. It seems to me that someone, somewhere should have something to say in the matter.

• 1710

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I may, I would like to make a few comments. Historic sites are not selected under the terms of the National Parks Act. That seems to be the cause of the confusion about this. The selection of historic sites is a separate process that involves the community. There is a council for the selection of historic sites. A detailed process has been established and all interested parties are advised. A historic site or monument is designated as such following a recommendation by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

If I understand what Mr. de Savoye is attempting to do, he wants to amend the clause by adding to it some conditions that could be raised in the process of historic sites determination. Perhaps it would be preferable to deal with this matter within the framework of a possible review of the process for the designation of historic sites. That would be an interesting discussion. One could refer to the battle on the Plains of Abraham and seek the agreement of a provincial government under some conditions, which could be more difficult in some provinces then in others. I believe we could have an interesting exchange on this matter. However, I doubt that such a discussion would be quite relevant to the National Parks Act.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, what our friend Mauril has just said is interesting. He said that we are talking about historic sites and that these have nothing to do with parks. However, we are enshrining provisions concerning them in Bill C-27, and Act concerning the National Parks of Canada, and that piece of legislation has not been called an Act concerning the National Parks and Historic Sites of Canada.

So either clause 42 is part of the Nationsl Parks Act, or clause 42 should not be in there. If the former is true, I believe that the government of the province should have its say, just as it is provided for in subclause 5(1).

We cannot have two different modes of operation, because this would, in the extreme, allow creating parks without calling them parks, but simply historic sites. We acquire the right and to hell with the province.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Frankly, I think we should not get carried away. There are 850 national historic sites. I would like the member opposite to give us one example of what he has in mind among these 850 sites.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: These 850 sites have not been created under the legislation under review since it has not even been passed yet. Consequently, I look at the whole bill and I see that it is possible, by order-in-council, to apply to these national historic sites of Canada subclause 8(1) and clause 11 where there is a reference to zoning. Of course, a correction will have to be made since there is no longer any mention of zoning in clause 11. Do you agree with me on this? And what about clauses 12 and 16 to 32? The whole National Parks Act is applicable to historic sites!

[English]

The Chair: Mrs. Katz.

Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Legislation and Policy Branch, Parks Canada): Perhaps I might provide a bit of additional background.

The purpose of the provision is not to designate a national historic site. What the provision says is that where a national historic site already exists, it is a site that is owned by Her Majesty and that requires some regulation-making authority in order to properly manage it.

It's a provision that's normally used with regard to a site that is fairly large, that has a large land base. Batouche and Louisbourg would be examples of large national historic sites that are owned by Her Majesty and are of sufficient size that they require some management tools. They are sites where Parks Canada requires management tools in order to properly manage visitor use on the sites. So it's simply a mechanism to enable national historic sites to avail themselves of regulation-making tools inside the National Parks Act in order to better manage those sites.

The Chair: Mr. Amos.

Mr. Bruce Amos: I might add, Mr. Chairman, that if the lands in question for a national historic site were actually provincial lands.... Madam Katz mentioned Louisbourg. Those were provincial lands originally. There was a federal-provincial agreement by which they came to Canada. If the lands are provincial, the only way they can come to Canada is by some kind of arrangement between the province and the federal government. That would be normal.

• 1715

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you have any questions, Mr. de Savoye?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Subclauses 42(1), (2) and (3) are very badly written if what you telling me is truly your intent. First of all, it does not refer to existing historic sites because it provides:

42. (1) The Governor in Council may set apart any land, [...] as a national historic site of Canada...

The phrase "may set apart" refers to the future and not to historic sites that are already in place. It refers to the future.

Then subclause 42(2) says:

(2) The Governor in Council may make any changes that the Governor in Council considers appropriate in areas set apart under subsection (1).

So the historic sites that have been created before the enactment of this legislation are not governed by the provisions of subclause 42(2), unless the Governor in Council sets them apart again as historic sites under subclause 42(1) and applies to them all the conditions set forth in clause 11, etc.

These provisions do not apply to historic sites that have been created previously. There is no grandfathering clause in there. In my view, clause 42 in its entirety does not reflect what I am hearing here. Moreover, I was told that where there were large tracts of land that belonged to provincial governments, in any case, arrangements have been made with the provincial government. The only change that I bring about in all of this—I realize that I would make many other changes if I were sitting in your place in order to make sure that the goals that you purport to seek are aachieved—is that I specify that the government of the province where these lands are situated must agree to their use for that purpose. You have set forth these provisions in subclause 5(1) and everyone was in agreement. I do not see why they could not be made applicable to clause 42.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I think that Mr. de Savoye has put forward interesting arguments. We could undertake to have a close look at what is written here. If I understood correctly, the provisions contained in the legislation that we have before us are exactly the same as those of the previous legislation. We focussed our effort on national parks and there may not have been enough thinking done about this clause. We could think about it if our colleagues are in agreement. For my part, I will undertake to do so together with officials from Parks Canada and we could come back to it a little bit later, perhaps at report stage. We could introduce amendments to meet the concerns raised by our colleague. I also undertake to discuss the matter with him. We will not accept for the time being what he his proposing because, obviously, we have not done the same amount of thinking that he has done on the issue. If he withdrew his amendment, we could agree on something later on, otherwise we will continue.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I propose that we come back to this point Thursday morning. Would you have the time by Thursday morning to bring forward a new wording for this clause? If you agree to do so, we could table motion BQ-22. If I could concur with your proposal on Thursday morning, I would be pleased to do so.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I hope that we will be able to come back tomorrow morning, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I was hoping that we could complete this today, given that we are so close. We will not be able to discuss this tomorrow morning because we have witnesses.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I already have made commitments with another colleague for Thursday morning. I am prepared to undertake to try and do something at report stage.

The Chairman: Are you prepared to come back after the vote?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: No, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You didn't express any objection to clauses 43 to 69.

[English]

We could adopt clauses 43 to 69.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I put the previous question on this issue, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment before you put the matter to a vote. I did not have the time to read amendments G-27 and following, in particular the amendments that follow G-29. When we meet again Thursday morning, I will not introduce any other amendment because I do not anticipate any problem with these descriptions, including the one dealing with the Mingan Islands National Park.

I have the feeling that if we were to take the time to read them between now and Thursday morning, we could then dispose of amendments from pages 107 to 149 without any great difficulty. Perhaps in some 15 minutes. If we are to examine every single line in committee, it would take a long time. If I read them on my own and if all members do the same, we should'nt have any difficulty.

• 1720

The Chairman: We must hurry up because there is a vote.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I propose that we put to a vote amendments BQ-21 and BQ-22.

The Chairman: All right.

[English]

(Amendments negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Translation]

The Chairman: Could we adopt in one block clauses 42 to 69?

Some hon. members: Yes.

[English]

(Clauses 42 to 69 inclusive agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thursday morning, we will do from clause 70 to the end.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, I will not be here Thursday morning.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I apologize to Mr. Mark, but I have to be here, so I won't be going with you. Sorry, sir, but my responsibilities are here.

Mr. Inky Mark: Is there any reason we can't continue this evening and get this over with?

The Chair: We won't have a quorum. That's the problem. Pierre can be there. I'll come back.

[Translation]

Could we seat tomorrow afternoon?

[English]

Can we try for tomorrow afternoon?

Mr. Rick Limoges: I won't be here.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's very important that Mr. Bélanger be in my riding on Thursday.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But my responsibilities—

The Chair: Can we try for tomorrow afternoon sometime? We'll have to strike a quorum. We need nine people. Otherwise, we can't do it. So we'll try for tomorrow afternoon.

[Translation]

I thank you for your cooperation.

The meeting is ajourned.