ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, April 26, 2004

¹

1535

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mr. Alan Latourelle (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency)

The Chair

Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Policy and Legislation, Parks Canada Agency)

The Chair

Mrs. Sandra Leduc (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice)

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CPC)

¹

1540

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Alan Latourelle

¹

1545

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Alan Latourelle

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Mr. Alan Latourelle

¹

1550

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Mr. Alan Latourelle

The Chair

Mr. Leon Benoit

¹

1555

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Leon Benoit

Mr. Alan Latourelle

Mr. Leon Benoit

º

1600

The Chair

Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 013

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 26, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good day everyone. On our agenda today is Bill C-28.

[English]

     In reading the second reading debate, there are certain points that perhaps could be quickly made.

    One, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Harvey, indicated that this bill will not create a precedent for other national parks. He went out of his way actually to make that point. We also have an indication, or statement, by him that the management of the lands to be withdrawn from Pacific Rim will be based on guidelines from CMHC.

    We have an indication by the member for Red Deer, Mr. Bob Mills, that he and his party are not opposing the bill, and that he was interested in exploring a surveying problem, which may be at the root of the bill and which may be clarified today.

    We have by the member of the Bloc Québécois, Mme Picard, an indication that the Bloc agrees with the principle of the bill.

    From the NDP, we have from Hansard an indication that the NDP is supportive of the bill.

    So we're making this kind of résumé of second-reading debate because it may help to guide us through our discussions today.

    We are welcoming

[Translation]

    Mr. Latourelle, Ms. Katz and Ms. Leduc, welcome to the committee. I invite you to make your presentations, following which I'm sure Members will have questions for you. We will then go on to consider the bill.

    Welcome, Mr. Latourelle.

[English]

    Mr. Alan Latourelle (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency): Bonjour.

    I didn't expect to make a presentation, so I'll keep it very brief.

    I guess the bill that's before you deals with two national parks, specifically, Riding Mountain National Park and Pacific Rim National Park. I'll touch on the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve because it's the one that I think is maybe more contentious.

    When we, the federal government, established the national park reserve in the 1970s there were already at that time some issues in terms of the Esowista Reserve, and we had acknowledged that there would be a requirement to deal with this issue in the future. We're now, some 34 years later, looking at the requirements of the community in terms of the social housing and community issues. What is before you is really a solution to the community social issues while ensuring that the ecological integrity of the national park, in this case Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, is protected.

[Translation]

    There has been extensive consultations withe the Aboriginal community in an effort to devise a solution that is amenable to both parties, that is Parks Canada and the Aboriginal community. I feel very confident saying that the bill now before you does not set a precedent either for Parks Canada or for national parks. I would also say that should other changes need to be made in the future to other national parks, this responsibility would not fall to the minister in charge of Parks Canada. In fact, authority for approving changes to national parks rests with Parliament. We do not anticipate any more situations of this nature in the future, because this is an isolated case. We're not setting a precedent. However, in the decades ahead, should other specific cases arise with respect to other parks, then again these cases would be debated in the House of Commons in advance of any changes.

    We're now prepared to take your questions.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Latourelle.

    Is there anything further you'd like to add, Ms. Katz?

    Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Policy and Legislation, Parks Canada Agency): No, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to add to Mr. Latourelle's comments.

    The Chair: What about you, Ms. Leduc?

    Mrs. Sandra Leduc (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Justice): No, I have nothing further to add. Thank you.

    The Chair: In that case, we'll begin the round of questions.

[English]

    Now to the usual round of questions, and we'll start with Monsieur Benoit, whom we welcome to the committee. This is a very great honour and pleasure.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's great to get such a warm welcome.

    This is a very short bill that we have before the committee today, and my party is supporting the bill. You'd think that we might just let it slip right through without questions. But I do think there are some serious questions that should be asked before this bill is approved.

    I get particularly concerned when I hear the government say there's no opposition to this happening. That simply isn't reality. How could there possibly be no opposition to part of a park being taken away from the parks system? That's something I know a lot of people would question and they'd want some real answers as to why that's happened.

    My colleague, the chief critic for the official opposition for the environment, Bob Mills, has said that in fact there hasn't been appropriate discussion on this bill and that we should have a wide range of witnesses at committee. For example, I have a sister-in-law who lives right in the area. She just moved there about a year ago and she hadn't even heard this was going on. So to say there's wide consultation, I guess it depends how you define it. But when people living in the community for that length of time don't know about it, then I would suggest it's not quite as wide as the government is trying to make Canadians believe.

    I do have concern not about the bill itself so much, but about the fact that we haven't heard from the range of witnesses you'd expect you'd hear from with something as important as taking part of a park away. It will never in the future, I would submit, be part of a national park.

    I'd just like to start by asking whether in fact you have any concern about this whatsoever, either in terms of just what's happening in that particular area or the precedent this could set for parts of other national parks being removed and forever lost to the national parks system.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: In terms of witnesses I guess that's the responsibility of the committee to decide who they want to call. As for the Parks Canada perspective, this is not something we do lightly. Clearly, reducing the size of a national park or taking some land out of a national park is not something we do very often. When we have to and when we do, we look at it very seriously.

    In this case we had made a commitment to the first nations when the park was established that we would look at this issue when the pressures would come. Again, that was in 1970 when we created the national park reserve. What we are doing from where we sit is living up to our commitment to that community. We had acknowledged at the time that we would have to deal with the pressures in the long term.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Wouldn't you acknowledge, though, that your responsibility of course is to the broad Canadian population? That would mean, yes, honour the commitment—there was a surveying mistake; something has to be fixed up in some fashion. I don't think anybody argues that point, but there certainly should also be a broad-based discussion. Everyone who has a stake in this, and I would argue that includes all Canadians, should have an opportunity at least to ask their questions, to state their position.

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: I think from the Canadian perspective the objective, and it's also enunciated in our own legislation, is to make sure the ecological integrity of the national park is protected. That clearly is our objective. Through the changes and negotiations that resulted through this bill, we feel we've achieved that.

    Clearly, when the first nations initially approached us, they had a different requirement and a different location. We've looked at all of our studies and all of our data in terms of finding the solution that has the least impact on the national park and ensures that the cultural integrity of the park is protected.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: To that end, you'd think that if this land is being taken out of the park it would be going into some similar use where there wouldn't be developments on the property, say, where you don't down the road see it as being really a town or a village or something. Is that the case, or in fact could this, and likely will this, property be used for development?

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: The objective and the reason why we are dealing with this issue is because of a social housing issue. So there will be development. It's basically to address housing shortfalls in the Esowista Reserve community. It's currently not developed, but part of that area has been logged in the past.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, back to my initial question, you as the representative of Parks Canada have no problem at all with parkland in such a unique environment. I'd like you to comment on that.

    I think it's a unique environment that will be used for development, will be taken from the park, and will be forever lost.

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: But I think we feel that we have addressed the environmental component appropriately through the plan developed with the community and with the location that's been identified for the land withdrawal.

    The other aspect that is critical to us as an organization over time, because of how we manage national parks, is to make sure we live up to the commitment we made to communities, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, when we establish national parks. These parks are established with the support and the commitment of local communities and provincial governments.

    In this case, when we established a park reserve in 1970, we acknowledged that there was an issue and that we would be supportive in resolving the issue in the future.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: On the issue of the precedents that this may in fact set, making it easier for other Parks Canada parks or land to be taken away from the park and put to some other use, what have the Justice lawyers said about the precedents and what this might lead to in the future?

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: From our perspective, this is thoroughly not a precedent. There are very few national parks where we have an aboriginal reserve right in the national park, totally surrounded by a national park. For me, that is one of the critical components.

    The other aspect is that we don't have any other parks where, when we established the park, we made a commitment upfront and acknowledged the issue upfront that there would be an issue in the future that we would need to address. So like you, we are very supportive to make sure that when lands become a national park, they continue to be protected.

    From where we sit, this is an isolated situation. It's not a precedent-setting situation because of two things. First, the aboriginal reserve is totally surrounded by the national park, and, second, when we created and established the national park reserve, we recognized at that time that we would have to take action in the future.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

    Monsieur Bigras, s'il vous plait.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be relatively brief since, as my colleague mentioned, we supported this bill on second reading in the House, without moving any amendments.

    I have several short questions, two of which I'd like to direct to you. If you can answer them, so much the better. The fundamental aim of this bill, among other things, is to address the overpopulation problem on the Esowista reserve. First of all, could you explain to us the overpopulation problem on this reserve, as you understand it?

    The second question has to do with upgrading water and sewer infrastructure. What would this bill resolve in terms of waste water infrastructure problems?

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: First of all, in terms of social and housing needs for the next 25 years, according to the studies submitted by this First Nation, approximately 160 additional housing units are needed. With the proposed legislation, 35 of these 160 residential units would be provided. The Aboriginal community is undertaking to meet the rest of its housing requirements outside by building outside the boundaries of the national park. In essence, the future of this national park is secured as a result of this solution which benefits the environment as well as the Aboriginal community, in the short term.

    The agreement in principle concluded with the Aboriginal community stipulates that the latter also undertakes to show environmental leadership in the construction of these housing units and in the installation of the required residential infrastructure.

    I do not have all of the details or specifics of the problems encountered, for example, waste water problems, but one thing is very clear in the agreement signed. The Aboriginal community must demonstrate environmental leadership in residential design and construction.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Since the aim of the bill is to rectify certain problems, have you in fact identified specific waste water problems? According to my notes, the bill would allow for sewer and other infrastructure upgrades. Have specific problems in this area been identified on the reserve?

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: Overpopulation and housing needs are two of the problems that have been identified at this time, according to the information I have.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Fine then. Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Lincoln, welcome back to the committee. We missed you notably since your last appearance.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Thank you, Sir Charles.

    I just want to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Latourelle. I see from your notes that there has been ample consultation to support it by the provincial governments, the NGO community, and environmental groups. The one change, or one extraction, there from Riding Mountain is just 4.75 hectares, and the other one is 86 hectares. How much does that represent of the total of Pacific Rim?

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: In terms of Pacific Rim, the 84 hectares are less than 1% of the park area.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: In your news release you make a reference to wildlife. What is the impact of the fact that the aboriginal community has almost, according to legal precedents, a right to fish and hunt anytime of the year? What, in your view, is the possible impact on wildlife and some marine species of the fact that you are going to give a piece of land out of the park to the native communities?

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: I think there are two components. First, in terms of the wildlife, we don't expect there will be an environmental impact. What we have done is try to locate the expansion to reserve in the area that would have the least impact on the wildlife. For example, there were interests in terms of having the expansion of the reserve closer to the beach, which is a major wildlife corridor. That's why we have changed the plans through consultation and negotiations with the first nations to ensure that it is located in an area that has already been disturbed and that would not have an impact on the wildlife.

    The other aspect is that as part of the agreement between Parks Canada and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, we will also be creating a $2.5 million mitigation fund to look at any research that is required to monitor the situation on an ongoing basis.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: So the corridors are saved, and there is no impact on the ecological integrity of the park itself through the reserve.

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: The location where we have agreed to extend the reserve is the area that has the least impact ecologically on the national park reserve, and clearly it is not within the major wildlife corridors within the national park reserve.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

    Mr. Benoit wishes to have another round.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair.

    One of the concerns that Bob Mills, the chief critic for the new Conservative Party, had about the bill is process. He received a copy of this bill one day before it was introduced in the House, and the technical briefing was actually, I believe, after it had been introduced in the House. That process isn't the type of process you'd expect.

    It seems like a good idea that you would send a bill like this to a committee before second reading, or send it to committee and have it discussed at committee. It sounds like a good idea, but for that to in fact be a good idea, there have to be witnesses, and a goodly number of witnesses, people who might be impacted by this change.

    So again, my party isn't opposing the bill, but certainly that process was something.... And I know that's a decision made by government; it's certainly not of your doing, I would believe. But that certainly is a concern. Having the discussion at committee and with the appropriate number of witnesses is very important.

    The issue of the impact on people is the issue Mr. Lincoln brought up. This is, of course, a unique circumstance, but there are other circumstances, many others, across the country where people on neighbouring lands are impacted by a national park and by the national park being put where it was put in the first place.

    I think of Elk Island. It's the one I know best. Farmers and ranchers in the area before the park was there depended on that land to graze cattle, and if my memory is right, I believe they were allowed to graze cattle even after it became a park, and that certainly has been very limited. But it's impacted them for this national park to come into existence.

    So that argument isn't entirely unique. I think you'd find many parks where a similar argument could be made. That in itself wouldn't justify passing this bill without having a really good hearing on it, and again that's the responsibility of government and the committee.

    I didn't feel I got a direct answer. I asked the question twice. I asked specifically whether you or anyone at Parks Canada who is responsible for this has any concern about this happening. Are there no concerns at all?

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: We have no concerns with this happening. The fact that we are withdrawing some lands from the national park is a very important decision and it's not one we take lightly.

    We are talking here about less than 1% of the national park reserve. We're speaking about an organization—in this case Parks Canada—living up to the commitment they made to the first nations when they initially established a national park reserve. We feel assured through our own independent studies done by Parks Canada that we will protect the ecological integrity of the park.

    Again, it's clearly not something we do every day, but in this particular case we feel comfortable that this is the right decision.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Are there any other situations across the country where people living in the area around a park are lobbying to have parts of the park taken from the park system and made available to them? Are there any others at all in the last 20 years you can think of?

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: Just to make sure my answer is clear, what we're talking about here is an aboriginal reserve that is inside the park, totally surrounded by the park. There are very few of those in our national parks system. Wood Buffalo is the only other one I know of.

    Again, there are not a lot of situations where we've faced that situation.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I was asking in a broader way, though. My question was, are there any other parks across the country where people in the surrounding area are asking for parts of a park to be taken from the park system and made available to them for their use?

    Mr. Alan Latourelle: Not that I'm aware of. In fact I would say it's the opposite in other cases. It's people who have sent us information or requested that we expand some of our national parks' boundaries. In terms of reducing the size of a national park, I'm not aware personally—and I'm the CO of Parks Canada, so I would be aware—of any request to take out parts of the land and return them to other uses.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

    The last thing I'd like to say is it's interesting that environmental groups, according to what our critic has been told, all support this. That's something that's almost unbelievable, because I thought there would be some of them who would be opposed to any land being taken from a national park. That's interesting.

    It's also interesting that a government that really says a lot about supporting the environment isn't asking for witnesses on this, as you would expect. In fact it's left to the opposition, the Conservative Party, to protect the environment rather than just talk about it. It's one thing to talk about protecting the environment; there's been lots of that going on. I think our party is serious about it, and that's why we feel there should be more witnesses on this.

    Thank you.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Perhaps you might even want to join us on the Kyoto agreement, Mr. Benoit.

    Mr. Marcil, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

    Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I believe we offered to meet with Mr. Mills to brief him on this bill, but he declined the invitation. If memory serves me well, I believe the Head of the Agency and the First Nations Chief even tried to get in touch with him.

    Therefore, this is a very unique case and has nothing to do with agricultural land. It takes nothing away from anyone. On the contrary, we're talking about a national park. To resolve a reserve's overpopulation problem, the government is agreeing to cede some national park land to the reserve.

    Mr. Chairman, I think we should proceed with the clause-by-clause reading.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Marcil.

    Are there any further questions?

    If not, I will call the clauses.

    (Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to on division)

    The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: I think this was probably one of the unique records in the Olympics of legislative meetings. You can enter it in the Parks Canada books that in something like 32 minutes a bill was approved.

    We congratulate you on the fine work you've done to make it possible. We are certainly reassured by the statement made by the parliamentary secretary at second reading that this arrangement does not set a precedent but is unique in its kind. We wish you well in implementing the legislation once it is proclaimed.

    Thank you for appearing today.

    On Wednesday we will have CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association research people, before us on water and the Great Lakes. Those who are interested in water issues in relation to the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence are cordially invited to attend. We look forward to that meeting.

[Translation]

    Thank you and have a pleasant day.

[English]

    This meeting is adjourned.