CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 1, 1998

• 1530

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'm calling to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, pursuant to the order of reference of the House dated Thursday, March 19, 1998, to study Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.

[Translation]

In accordance with the order of reference of the House of Commons dated Thursday, March 19, 1998, the Committee will now consider Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.

[English]

We're pleased today to have several witnesses with us: from the Heritage Canada Foundation, Mr. Brian Anthony, executive director; from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, Mr. Richard Alway, president; and as an individual witness, Mr. Julian Smith, principal architect, Julian Smith & Associates, who is the coordinator of the heritage conservation program at the School of Canadian Studies at Carleton University.

And I'm sorry, sir. Could you identify yourself?

Mr. Brian Anthony (Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation): With me is my colleague, Mr. Chairman, Douglas Franklin, from the Heritage Canada Foundation.

The Chairman: We're very pleased to have you here.

As you know, the format is that the three of you will address the meeting, taking ten minutes each; and hopefully we can complete it in just over half an hour so that we can allow time for questions by the members.

Who wants to start? Mr. Anthony?

Mr. Brian Anthony: We decided among ourselves, if it's all right with you, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Alway would begin.

The Chairman: Of course.

Mr. Richard Alway (President, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm happy indeed to be here today to express the views of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada with respect to Bill C-29 and I thank you for giving me the opportunity.

I've read the bill, and on behalf of the board let me say that we generally support it. I can tell you the board was consulted with respect to the legislation. The board met with the Secretary of State for Parks and is very satisfied with the result of the consultation.

I would, however, like to emphasize a very few important elements in the bill which the board believes are critical to ensuring the future success of the federal government's commemorative program.

The Canadian Parks Agency is meant to be, as I read it, not just about parks, but as the bill makes abundantly clear, also about historic sites, not as a secondary or junior adjunct to national parks but rather as a critical feature of the agency's responsibilities.

And here I would just like to say that my own personal view is that the name for the new agency is not perhaps totally adequate given the broad scope of the new agency's intended activities. The historic sites part of the function of the new agency is fairly large. If one were to look at the 3,500 person-years involved with the Parks Canada operation at the moment, over 1,000 of those person years are devoted to the historic sites part of the program. And this is often forgotten as one recognizes the natural emphasis that is on natural heritage and the natural resources through the national parks in the Parks Canada mandate.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Act of 1952-53 established the role of the minister and our board in statute. The act assigned to the Minister of Canadian Heritage the designation and commemoration of historic places and that legislation also gave to the board its role as her advisory body on these matters.

• 1535

The consequential amendments in Bill C-29 clearly set the relationship between the Canadian Parks Agency and the board. Just as importantly, both pieces of legislation recognize that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is not in the business of developing federal government policy on cultural heritage. Thus, it is the minister who provides the long-term direction on national historic sites policies. While the board may be expected to contribute its views on policy matters, its primary function has been, and under the proposed legislation will continue to be, to provide the minister with impartial and expert advice in matters relating to historical commemoration. Nothing in Bill C-29 changes the relationship of the board and the minister. The bill maintains the status quo in that relationship.

The board was originally established in 1919, with the recognition that advice on historical commemoration matters should be non-partisan and not derived solely from the bureaucracy, a principle that has been successfully applied until today. History shows that the board's advice has been well received by ministers and the public and government jurisdictions generally, primarily because, first of all, board advice is based on sound historical research. Because of its expertise, recommendations have been reasonable and defensible on historical grounds, thereby permitting the minister of the day to accept advice, even when such advice can sometimes seem controversial or unpopular.

Secondly, the board also fulfils the role of independent jury. As a non-partisan independent jury, the board acts as a buffer between the minister and those seeking federal recognition. Without the benefit of this advice, the minister could find himself or herself subject to strong public and political pressure to declare sites of marginal interest to be of national significance.

So with the advice of the board, the Government of Canada has made over 1,600 designations, including some 800 places, 500 historic persons, and 300 events. Parks Canada and the board use the recognition of heritage places to create a greater understanding of the Canadian story.

Most importantly, Bill C-29 ensures the coherence and integrity of the national historic sites program in the proposed agency. Parks Canada's current commemorative program, to which our board strongly contributes, deals with the identification, evaluation, presentation, protection and celebration of our history. An ongoing interest for both the board and Parks Canada is ensuring the commemorative integrity of our national historic sites.

As the majority of national historic sites are owned and operated not by Parks Canada but by others, creating a network of stewards of national historic sites requires guidance and professional and technical advice from the new parks agency. This represents a tangible recognition from the Government of Canada that the stewardship of the these special places is in the national interest. Because of the increasing demands placed on it and the diversity and complexity of the items submitted for consideration, the board relies on the national historic sites program of Parks Canada, and now the new agency, for research and administrative support in the delivery of its mandated activities.

So I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, to sum up, that we believe the legislation as outlined is adequate and is in the interest of the heritage movement across Canada. I think our own personal view, as a board, is that a title such as the Canadian Parks and Historic Sites Agency would more adequately reflect the true scope of the program; however, perhaps we'll get that across in other ways.

We're delighted to have the opportunity to be with the committee this afternoon. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Alway. Have you copies of your notes?

Mr. Richard Alway: I'm speaking from notes, but I'll try to get them typed up for presentation to the secretary.

The Chairman: Yes, you could send them to the clerk.

Mr. Richard Alway: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Anthony.

Mr. Brian Anthony: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to thank you for the welcome opportunity to—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Anthony.

For the information of the witnesses and the members, a vote is going to come up at 4 p.m. We have 20 minutes to go, so if members disappear, you'll understand. We've no control over it. But we'll come back after the vote.

Mr. Brian Anthony: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thought rather than submit a brief to you on the Canadian Parks Agency legislation under consideration, I would instead make a few opening remarks, deal with any questions you and your committee colleagues might wish to raise, and then follow up with a letter to you, reiterating and expanding upon issues raised, and where necessary, providing further information or clarification in response to any questions posed by the committee.

• 1540

The Heritage Canada Foundation, better known as Heritage Canada, was created by the federal government as a national non-governmental charitable foundation with a mandate to promote the protection of the built heritage of Canada.

The minister who created Heritage Canada, now the Prime Minister of Canada, established the foundation by way of endowment and also gave it status as a trustee of the crown. A few short days ago, on March 28, Heritage Canada marked its 25th anniversary. Given our built heritage mandate and our quarter of a century of involvement in that field, it is from that perspective that the following remarks will be made.

Let me say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that Heritage Canada welcomes the conversion of the Parks Canada service into a special service agency. Throughout its history it had been something of an orphan, moving from one foster home to another, subject to the whim of its caretaker of the moment, often ignored and sometimes exploited. Giving the service its own stand-alone status as a special service agency will free it from being subjected to such vicissitudes and will provide it with the operational flexibility that results from provisions for, for example, revenue retention and rollover and will make for greater efficiency and effectiveness.

We welcome and fully support the decision, then, to allow the service to move out of its current temporary home and set up house on its own. Our concerns relate to the question of what the new agency should be allowed to take with it to its new abode and what it should leave behind in its old.

As committee members will know from the Heritage Canada brief submitted recently with regard to the current cultural policy review being undertaken by the committee, we strongly support in general terms a clearly articulated federal cultural policy that includes a coherent and comprehensive component dealing with the heritage element of the cultural sector. More particularly, we have also argued in that brief and elsewhere for a strengthening of such existing protective mechanisms as the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, appearing here today, and the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, and, where necessary, the creation of new powers.

As we understand it, no final decision has been taken by the Department of Canadian Heritage as to whether the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, as well as other elements related to the built heritage of Canada, will stay housed in the department or go to the new agency. In this regard, the bill before you is not clear or helpful and our reading of it suggests a split, which raises some concerns.

We have been given to understand that any decision in this matter will be based on the guiding principle that the new agency will be strictly an operational one and that policy functions will remain in the Department of Canadian Heritage. In that context, we understand that the new agency will have to have certain powers granted to it in order to function and will have to have certain forms of expertise housed in it—archaeologists and historians, for example—to honour its operational obligations. However, the minister and the Department of Canadian Heritage must retain significant powers and expertise if the department is to be worthy of its relatively new name and if it is to play the enhanced protective role we recommend in order to exert government-wide influence in the built heritage field.

How are the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and FHBRO and other functions that have travelled with the Parks Service from one department to another to be thought of in that light? Are they primarily operational? Are they primarily policy oriented? Are they both? And if they are both, how can one separate one function from the other? The draft legislation before you—and we recognize that the wording is permissive and not prescriptive—allows the new agency to exercise certain powers but reserves others for the minister. This lack of clarity creates more questions and concerns, in our mind, than answers and reassurances.

I hope I can rely safely on my memory when I say that I believe it was Archimedes who said that if he were given a big enough lever and a place to stand, he could move the world. Well, we want the minister and the Department of Canadian Heritage to move the world, to have a big enough lever and a firm enough place to stand in order to play a greater role in protecting the built heritage of Canada.

Anything that might dilute the powers of the minister and the department in that regard, then, would run contrary to our expectations and recommendations. While we will pursue discussions with departmental officials in order to obtain clarification and satisfaction on this point, we feel that the standing committee should examine Bill C-29 closely from this perspective, in order to ensure that the new agency has such powers necessary to fulfil its operational mandate but that this is not at the cost of the ability of the minister and the Department of Canadian Heritage to exercise a strengthened role now and in the future.

I also raise another concern that has been brought to our attention by other groups concerned with built or cultural heritage issues, rather than natural heritage issues. Parks Canada, soon to be the new Canadian Parks Agency, tends to be more oriented—as Dr. Alway has alluded to and as the name suggests—to the parks and natural heritage aspects of its mandate, rather than historic sites. Certainly it is this part of its mandate that generates the most public and political interest, and indeed controversy. Public consultations stretching over the past two years have involved more groups from the natural heritage field than those concerned with the built heritage and therefore historic sites.

• 1545

We would not want this important part of the mandate of the new agency, the ownership, operation and interpretation of historic sites, to be overshadowed by its parks responsibilities.

The Chairman: Mr. Anthony, perhaps I may interrupt you in order to tell members that the vote has been annulled. There's no vote, so you can feel relaxed.

Mr. Brian Anthony: I can take a deep breath, then.

A voice: Let the translator catch up.

Mr. Brian Anthony: While there is nothing in the draft legislation before you that would give cause for concern in this regard, on the one hand, or comfort on the other, we will have to monitor the human and financial resource allocation decisions of the new agency and respond as and when appropriate. We nonetheless did feel it was worth raising with the standing committee.

While on this point, I think it might be worth saying that I personally support the views that Dr. Alway has put forward about the naming of the bill before you, because I think it would send out the right signal and give some comfort to those who are concerned about the built heritage of the country and the historic sites.

The Chairman: Did you have a suggestion?

Mr. Richard Alway: Yes, I did. He just gave it. It's the Canadian Parks and Historic Sites Agency.

Mr. Brian Anthony: Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the related issue of accountability. I mentioned that we will have to monitor the performance of the agency.

We understand that the federal government wishes to limit the size of the order-in-council universe and therefore—and for other reasons as well, presumably—no provision has been made for a governing or advisory board for the new agency, as is the case with most other agencies in the cultural sector at the federal level. Instead, public accountability is to be achieved by way of a biannual forum.

We will have to take that on trust for the moment and monitor the performance of this accountability provision over time. Others, those involved in the natural heritage field in particular, have raised the matter with us as a concern, however, and the standing committee may wish to give some thought to it.

One option might be to include in the legislation a permissive clause that could be invoked if the biannual forum mechanism is found to be inadequate later.

Mr. Chairman, I think that covers the major points I wished to bring to your attention today and therefore concludes my remarks. In thanking you once again for the opportunity of appearing before you, I would now welcome any questions at the appropriate moment.

The Chairman: Thank you for bringing your important concerns and suggestions before the committee. They'll be extremely worth while.

Dr. Alway, I would like to apologize to you. If you look at the card in front of you, you'll see that your name was listed as Always, and so it was in the order of reference. I apologize.

Mr. Richard Alway: It's all right.

The Chairman: There's always a glitch in those things.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): There's Always a glitch in those things!

Some hon. members: Oh!

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. Julian Smith (Principal Architect, Julian Smith & Associates, and Coordinator of the Heritage Conservation Program, School of Canadian Studies, Carleton University): Thank you.

I would like to say I'm here also representing ICOMOS Canada. ICOMOS is the International Council on Monuments and Sites, which is an NGO that advises UNESCO at the international level, and in Canada provides a forum for professionals and others in the conservation field, particularly in the cultural resource conservation field.

My comments are generally in support of Bill C-29 as it is currently presented. I have four points I would like to make. The first is support for the idea of establishing a distinct administrative home for Parks Canada. This repeats what Mr. Anthony has just said.

Parks Canada has moved. I at one time was chief architect for the national historic sites program. We started in Indian and Northern Affairs, then moved to the Department of the Environment. Since then there's been another move. There's been a split of the staff, the professional staff of architects and engineers going to Public Works. I think it's very important that there be a distinct home and that there be an identity.

In many contemporary fields the leadership is provided by the private sector or by other levels of government, but in the natural and cultural heritage conservation field the leadership has always rested with the federal government, in particular with Parks Canada. It is therefore particularly important to those of us in the private sector and in academia that that role have a clear identity within the federal government, that it be accessible, that it be identifiable, that it be visible.

I would support what the two previous speakers have said: that the name Canadian Parks Agency does not carry with it the richness of what this agency can provide. I would have two suggestions: one is to support the idea of the Canadian Parks and Historic Sites Agency; the other is simply to retain the name Parks Canada, Parcs Canada. That's a name that has acquired enormous credibility both across the country and internationally. Wherever we travel with other ICOMOS national committees and so on, Parks Canada is a well-recognized name. I would also urge consideration of that as a possible alternative.

• 1550

I also think it's very important that within this administrative home, the activities of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the other heritage protection programs have been included.

My second point is to reinforce what the previous speakers have said about the fact that historic sites are a part of Parks Canada, and an important part. At the same time, I think what is most important at this point is that the national parks, with their primary focus on natural resource conservation and national historic sites and related programs, with their primary emphasis on cultural resource conservation, be contained within the same agency. There have been discussions sometimes about splitting these two groups.

We're moving into a time when ideas of the overlap between the cultural and natural heritage are becoming increasingly important. This partly comes from the first nations, who have pointed out the arbitrariness often of separating the natural and the cultural heritage. It relates to ideas like the cultural landscape, notions of identifying cultural landscapes of historic importance. These questions of cultural landscape, which have been developed in part by Parks Canada not only in Canada but internationally, are areas where there is increasing interest in the academic world and in other levels of government because cultural landscapes provide a way for us to deal with a very multicultural and multi-regional identity in this country.

I just want to indicate a strong support for the idea of an agency that brings together and creates the overlap between the national parks and national historic sites.

The third item—and I may disagree here a bit with Mr. Anthony—is that I think the conservation field relies very much on the coming together of theory and practice. Some of the most important contributions Parks Canada has made, from the point of view of other levels of government, the private sector, and those of us in the university community, are in areas such as the cultural resource management policies, the larger policy documents, the formats for heritage character statements, significant intervention reviews, and the ideas of commemorative integrity.

A lot of these initiatives are right at the borderline between theory and practice. If those important initiatives are to continue, I think it's essential that the new agency has within it both the practice of conservation in the operational concerns of Parks Canada and the theoretical issues that come about partly through the development of policy-planning development activities.

I would strongly urge the committee to reinforce in Bill C-29 the importance of maintaining, within the Canadian Parks Agency, the policy and planning initiatives and the expertise that will allow this coming together of theory and practice to continue.

The fourth area is the importance of dialogue and partnership with other agencies, other levels of government. From my own position in the private sector and in the university community, Parks Canada has both an internal face that deals with its own land holdings and an external face, which has sometimes been difficult to access. The agency itself will give visibility and a point of contact for those who are outside the Parks Canada environment.

I think Bill C-29 does provide, in the preamble and in some of the references in the particular subsections, the recognition that there are heritage protection programs and a variety of mechanisms for achieving the objectives of the federal mandate in the heritage conservation area, which do involve other partners.

Many national historic sites are not even owned by the federal government, so connections or the possibility of connections being made between other agencies and Parks Canada is, in my view, essential. I think Bill C-29 does contain those allowances. It's not a focus of the document as it now stands, but it's important that those references that are in the document be maintained to allow those kinds of partnerships to be maintained and strengthened.

• 1535

So those are my comments. I do have a brief, which I will leave with the clerk.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. I think that in 25 minutes, the three of you have given us a lot of food for thought and questions for the members.

I would like this opportunity of welcoming Mr. Pankiw, who I understand is going to be the new official opposition critic for parks.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): For now.

The Chairman: For now. Anyway, the floor is yours, Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for Mr. Anthony. You expressed some concern that there's no governing or advisory committee. I'm wondering where your concern lies. Why is that a concern to you? What do you foresee happening?

Mr. Brian Anthony: I wasn't expressing that concern from a personal point of view. I think there are many ways to achieve accountability, but some of our organizational members have questioned the absence of a governing board or an advisory board. They wondered whether or not a biannual sort of a forum would be a sufficient accountability mechanism.

It has been put to me that, in effect, you're dealing ex post facto with what's happening in the previous two years. You don't have a way of influencing decisions or actions while they're being formulated.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the committee should inflict on this new agency a governing or advisory board right now, but it does occur to me that if other groups are concerned about the adequacy of the biannual forum as an accountability mechanism, then there may be some way that you can provide permissive wording so that five years from now, if that's proven to be inadequate, an advisory or governing body could be created at the wish of the minister.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: You also alluded to office buildings. You said the bill is unclear. In my understanding, you said it was unclear as to what the future of those building is in terms of whether they would remain—

Mr. Brian Anthony: No. My concern was for some of the functions that have traditionally been part of the Parks Canada family, like the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, which is represented here today. More importantly, as for the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, is that to go with and to the new agency or is it to stay with the department? This decision has not been taken, and its lack of clarity is of concern.

In particular reference to FHBRO, the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, we would like to see the powers of that office strengthened. At the moment, it finds its basis in regulation as opposed to legislation. We would like to see it legislatively based.

At the moment, crown corporations are not obliged to abide by... They fall under the FHBRO umbrella. It's voluntary compliance. We would like to see that change as well.

My question is this. In the absence of clarity with regard to the decision as to where FHBRO is to be located, if we want to see those powers strengthened and if it's not quite clear to us at the moment where FHBRO is to be housed, how can we effectively make the case for its strengthening? Also, how can it, if strengthened, play a role. We would like to know where it's going to end up.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay, I can understand that, but am I perceiving you correctly that you have a bias? Would you prefer to see that remain with the heritage department as opposed to going with the parks agency?

Mr. Brian Anthony: I guess if I can revert to the analogy that I used earlier about a big enough lever and a place to stand, I've been in this curious business of culture for nearly a quarter of a century. I spent most of that here in Ottawa. It's my observation that programs of line departments have more clout than that of agencies.

There may be a good case to be made for having FHBRO housed with the new service of Parks Canada, but it may be that the central agencies, such as Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office, would not find that an impediment to strengthening its powers, as opposed to doing the same if it were housed in the department.

My purpose I guess was simply to raise the question and to encourage a decision to be made by the department that will provide for the greatest possible powers on the part of FHBRO to exercise over other custodial departments at the federal level, and hopefully crown corporations as well, on a mandatory, not voluntary, basis.

• 1600

Does that help?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes, that's it. Thank you.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I apologize for being late. I was on my way here, but then I had to go back for a vote that never took place. So, I had to come back.

I have been seriously considering the issue of establishing a parks agency. The only truly valid reason I can see in what I have heard is that an agency would be able to work with a two-year budget, that is, to administer a budget covering two years. That makes sense, since parks operate only six months a year.

But an agency would not be established on those grounds alone. There must be another reason. So I tried to understand what risks the establishment of an agency might represent. I wondered whether the agency was not being created so that parks would become self- financing as quickly as possible. And if parks are to become self- financing, entrance fees will have to be increased considerably. And if entrance fees to the parks are increased, ordinary Canadians will no longer enjoy the access they do today.

So is there a risk, or isn't there? Am I worrying about nothing? What exactly could happen if an agency were established, and what are the potential risks? In the bill, could we include guarantees to ensure that problems like these do not occur? Such guarantees are not in the bill as it stands. What are your views? My question is to any of you who may wish to answer.

[English]

Mr. Richard Alway: We may all want to say something on this. There is risk inherent in any change, and we all know that, but here I think there is an opportunity that outweighs any potential risk.

I think the efficiencies and the ease of operation will both be improved by agency status. As you already mentioned, the two-year budgeting, and certain aspects with regard to planning, I think, will be easier with agency status. Without going so far as to talk about self-financing, I think one can talk about building partnership arrangements with sponsors so that increased private support can be encouraged for this very important public service.

I think it's very hard for government to do that effectively. I know because I have had involvement in trying to raise money from the private sector for certain public purposes and it's almost always necessary to set up an independent foundation. Businesses and individuals are reluctant to give money to the body that every April 30 asks them to fill out the form and pay money in the form of taxes, so I think there are a number of benefits with regard to agency status.

Perhaps in a little contradistinction to what Mr. Anthony has said, my own sense is that the operation of Parks Canada, the new agency, whatever its name may be—and I encourage everybody to think about that some more—will be just as close to the minister. I don't see it as being downplayed or losing status in any way. If I did think that was going to happen, I would oppose the change, but I see this as an opportunity to provide an enhanced service to the public of Canada, if not at a lesser cost, for at least the same cost and a greater degree of service. I think there are benefits inherent in the idea.

The Chairman: Mr. Anthony or Mr. Smith, do you want to add to this?

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Anthony: I agree with Mr. Alway. In my view, there may be some risks involved in establishing an agency, but there would also be opportunities. For example, if Parks Canada has more administrative and financial flexibility, it might be in a position to minimize costs and manage operations more efficiently.

I believe that Parks Canada administrators are extremely aware of their mandate to afford the general public access to parks. I doubt they will ever want to discourage people from using the parks network and visiting historic sites. I do want to make this clear.

• 1605

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Smith.

Mr. Julian Smith: I have just one comment. My concern when it's within a larger department is that it is possible for budgetary restraint for pressure for auto-financing to be put on a unit within the department which is really not subject to public scrutiny, or on a unit where there's very little public awareness of that.

When Parks Canada was part of Environment Canada there were decisions being made that affected historic sites that were really not open to public knowledge or scrutiny. I think as an agency...there is broad public support for both the national parks and the national historic sites, and any pressure to privatize, to create a self-financing operation, will be more visible, I think, and hopefully more open to public comment and reasonable resolution. But there's no guarantee of that.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Do you think that the bill should contain provisions giving the agency the power of establishing a national foundation at the outset, so that such provisions don't have to be included later? It would be taken for granted that a foundation could be set up, so that Canadians wishing to make donations to the agency could get a tax break for it. Would this be provided for directly in the bill?

[English]

Mr. Richard Alway: I think there is already some discussion of this under way now, and I think it's very likely that this may happen. And I don't think it actually needs inclusion. I think the bill is sufficiently permissive to allow this to occur now—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Okay.

Mr. Richard Alway: —and I think it may happen.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): I was employed at Parks Canada for a number of years, and so I know the parks quite well. I have a question first, and then I might have a few comments afterwards. My question is on a point Ms. Tremblay already touched on. What is your opinion on the accessibility of national parks and historic sites across Canada, which Canadians should be able to enjoy? Do you feel that Canadians should have the right and the means to visit those parks?

[English]

The Chairman: Who wants to take that question? Mr. Anthony.

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Anthony: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, it is a given that historic sites are public property. This means that Canadians and taxpayers must have access to our parks and historic sites.

However, we must recognize the fact that administration costs do have to be covered. So we must find a balance between profitability and accessibility. In my view, Parks Canada administrators are keenly aware of this aspect of their mandate.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I think that entrance fees at their current level are high enough to prevent many people from visiting the parks. I have worked at visitors' reception. I was at the gate. This was my summer job, until I was elected. It was my job to welcome visitors. So, of course, I was the one who welcomed people from the region. National parks have frequently been established in regions with high unemployment and high poverty rates. So in many cases people from the region no longer have access to the beaches and the parks, because entrance fees are too high.

We also have to be realistic, and acknowledge that one of the reasons for establishing your agency is to cut budgets. I would like to know whether you agree. In parks, jobs are seasonal. And in many regions, they are the jobs that pay the best wages. Employees who work those jobs during the summer draw unemployment insurance the rest of the year. In the future, those people will be employed solely on a contract basis

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]. So how can we assess the impact on communities—on a given community or on communities in general—of establishing an agency which has as one of its objectives to cut jobs and reduce the accessibility of parks?

• 1610

I find this very sad. When I was working at the gate, I would see kids on the back seat of cars who were just dying to go to the beach, but who couldn't because their mother didn't have the $7 or $14 to pay the entrance fee.

How can we ensure that this sort of thing stops?

[English]

Mr. Richard Alway: These are good points. The fact is, I believe there was a certain amount of cutting going to occur and has occurred already. I don't think the change to agency status is the thing that is going to bring about any reduction in employment. There were other policy decisions, quite removed from whether the cuts would be made as part of a ministry operation or part of an agency.

But I think the question about affordability really is a significant question, and I assume that people who study this realize that there is a trade-off. The higher one sets the fee in an attempt to recover costs, you can get to a point where you're actually discouraging attendance and participation, and I think that then becomes a problem. At what level one can draw the line is a matter of prudential judgment, and it's very difficult to come to that determination without certain objective studies as to what the attendance figures are and what the factors are that affect attendance figures.

My own background several years ago was with the national museums, and when the argument was put forward in the mid-1980s that the museums should move to admission fees—they had been free up to that point—although I was part of the operation, I opposed the fees at that juncture because I think if you see something like museums as a function of public education, you can see that you don't ask people to pay in that user-fee way. However, if museums became a form of general entertainment, indeed in the direction of theme parks and other successful operations that we see, then I think it becomes a matter of entertainment and it's quite reasonable to adopt an appropriate fee schedule.

So I have a certain natural sympathy for the point you're making. I think in this area it's a matter, really, of trying to figure out what the fee level is that can be maintained without discouraging attendance. It's the same as access to higher education. If the fees go too high, it's going to have a depressing effect on attendance. I'm not sure, however, that the current attendance in the national parks show that this is a problem. It could be a problem in the future if the fees went too high.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I guess my other comment or question would be also the environmental aspect of it. When you have user fees and you're charging for firewood, what's really happening is people are going into the campground and cutting a tree down and heating themselves, because they're just not going to pay that extra. We are really hurting our natural parks by pushing and pushing so that everybody has to pay through the nose for everything. We're really defeating the purpose at the end of it, as far as I'm concerned.

The Chairman: Mr. Smith.

Mr. Julian Smith: I would say if the relationship between Parks Canada and the other operators who benefit from activities such as cultural tourism is strengthened, then there is a possibility of reducing or eliminating fees for national historic sites, for national parks, if the return on that investment is seen to benefit the communities in other ways. That's something that, certainly at the international level, is happening more and more as the economic significance of these parks and historic sites as tourism destinations becomes evident. The economic argument becomes stronger.

But in order for that to work, there has to be a sense of a cooperative venture between national historic sites and national parks and the other actors in the community or the region. That's something the agency is, in theory, well set up to do, but whether that happens or not I think is an open question. In Europe there are certainly many historic sites for which the government is now paying the cost, with the returns coming from other people who benefit from the tourism that results, rather than from entrance fees charged for those sites themselves.

• 1615

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Muise, then Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Saada.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to start by thanking our guest, who is very informative.

My first point may be more of a comment. You made reference earlier that the name “Parks Canada” is something that's very distinctive, in that everyone recognizes it. I agree with you. Parks Canada has been administered by different agencies or different government ministries in the past, yet it was still known by the same name even when it was under Environment, was it not?

Even if it's administered by the Canadian Parks Agency, it could still keep its name. If you remember when we had the people here from Parks Canada last week, they were explaining to us that their uniforms will probably remain for a while, and will be changed as the need arises. Signage will also remain. I think that's a good idea so that we don't incur an additional cost, but that was just my feeling, and I think what you're saying is right.

Coming to the legislation for a little bit, a comment was made by Mr. Smith that it would be good to maintain policy and planning initiatives in the legislation. Also, I've listened to all three of you, and it seems that you support it in principle, but there didn't seem to be a wholehearted endorsement of it. I'm wondering if there is anything we've missed on our side, if there is anything you feel is lacking in the present legislation and that you think should be there.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, so that we can be clear for the witnesses, were you referring to policy and...?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, policy. The name thing was just a comment that I made earlier.

The Chairman: Yes, right.

Mr. Julian Smith: I agree with Mr. Anthony, although we may have a different take on it. The bill as currently drafted is somewhat open-ended. I think that may be why our own interpretations of it have been somewhat different.

My reading of the bill as drafted is that the related heritage protection programs and the primary responsibility for national parks and national historic sites does rest with the agency, and with that not only the operational but the policy, planning, and developmental concerns that are part of that responsibility. As it's currently written, it would be possible to interpret the language as reserving those for the minister, because there are a number of clauses that are open-ended.

In my mind, the fact that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and its activities are within the agency strengthens the role the agency has to play, that being the primary role in the federal mandate in this area of cultural and natural resource conservation. So my interpretation of it is positive.

When you ask if there are aspects of the bill that are either disappointing or lacking, as I said at the beginning, I'm generally very supportive. I think it has been well written. I think it indicates what I think is most important: a holistic approach to heritage conservation. That's an area in which Canada is being watched by many other countries, because we have always combined natural and cultural heritage in a way that is unique. There are many countries where natural parks come under a ministry of natural resources. You can look at the Ontario example. Cultural sites are dealt with by a cultural agency that has a very different world view.

Our history, particularly over the last 25 years, is generating increasing interest internationally. To me, that's where the bill is strong and where it acknowledges that as a path for the future.

The Chairman: Mr. Anthony, do you want to add to this? You made a comment about policy and planning.

Mr. Brian Anthony: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I should say something on Julian's earlier remarks that we might be in a state of difference of opinion. I don't feel we are in terms of the bulk of the provisions in the bill. As I mentioned, my only concern is the lack of clarity in the section that deals with the exercise of powers, which is permissive language. But when you couple that with the fact discussions in the Department of Canadian Heritage are still under way about what should go, what should stay, and what should be situated where, it does raise some concern on the part of the built heritage community about the ability of the department to merit its title, for a start, and also to play a strong role.

• 1620

We clearly want the department and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to have a very strong watchdog function when it comes to protecting the built heritage of Canada, whether it's within the ownership of the federal government or not. We therefore want a watchdog with muscle and teeth, something that will be respected, something in the order of say a German shepherd at least, not a small set of chihuahuas that only have nuisance value and are easily crushed underfoot.

The lack of clarity in the legislation and the lack of a decision on the part of the department about where the responsibility centres will reside and how they will interrelate is a concern I thought would be appropriate to bring to the attention of this committee.

The Chairman: Dr. Alway, do you want to comment on the German shepherd and the chihuahuas?

Mr. Richard Alway: The question was whether we are really enthusiastic about this. I'm pretty positive about it. I have a lot of sympathy for what has been said about the holistic approach. If the Historic Sites and Monuments Board were to be separated from the Parks Canada operation and the agency, because we depend on its staff for a fair amount of preparation of papers and studies and so on, which we then use in making our decisions with regard to the advice we will give the minister, it will be necessary to do a fair amount of new hiring. Therefore, in terms of efficiency, smoothness of operation, and timeliness of the delivery of the service, it's better to keep these things together. I think it also comes into the kind of coherence you get with the cultural and the natural being kept together.

I would say—not to piggy-back something in that isn't relevant—the real concerns I have in this area are not so much with regard to the legislation; they have to do with our whole approach to funding in this area.

I will just give you two statistics that I think sum up my concern. The budget for colonial Williamsburg in the United States is $132 million. We know how important that site is and how marvellous it is to visit. The total budget for the entire national historic sites program of Parks Canada—and we're talking about hundreds of national historic sites here—is $96 million. So the disparity is enormous.

There's a cost-sharing program for built heritage, run by the federal government, that we give advice on as the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. The budget for this year is $2.6 million, for a national program having to do with all elements of built heritage.

The Province of Quebec a few years ago announced a program that would only have to do with cost-sharing with regard to funding projects in religious structures—churches, convents and so on. The money was to be spent over ten years and the total budget was $32 million. So you have a provincial program just so much larger than a federal program that is meant to have a broad influence but is funded at a level that simply makes that impossible.

I think there are areas here that need to be addressed. A program like that should either be expanded or cancelled, because at the moment it simply raises expectations and unfortunately the program is impossible to deliver.

There is a backlog of 65 or 70 projects with regard to this program, where the recommendations have been made. Unfortunately, we're dealing with recommendations now that were made five and six years ago, and the project has either gone on and been completed without the participation or simply hasn't gone ahead.

So there are real things to consider in this area. I know the money is always limited and has been even cut back, but I think that is the area for real concern. The structure of this legislation is good, because it will deliver an enhanced level of service for no more public expenditure, and maybe we can then take any dollars that are saved and put them into these other areas that have been relatively neglected.

• 1625

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Alway.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): My personal impression is that the purpose of establishing an agency is not necessarily to have parks and historic sites become self-financing. I tend to believe that the purpose is rather to move away from an administrative system that has become extremely restrictive. This was revealed in the debate, when Parks Canada representatives appeared before us last week, or earlier this week. Their purpose is to be free of the constraints of the Financial Administration Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Labour Code, and many other things. One major concern did arise: employees must not pay the price when the yoke—if I may call it that—is removed. I'm looking forward to seeing these witnesses again.

I can well believe that Parks Canada would like to be free of the rigour, or one might even say rigor mortis, of an administrative system that may have become a burden. There are advantages to this from the administrative standpoint, but once again we must ensure that employees do not pay the price.

That said, I will move on to an entirely different subject, if I may.

[English]

I would like to know how historic sites get chosen currently and how they will be chosen in the future, or the reverse if you wish, if there's any difference, and how a site becomes historic. What are the criteria? How does it happen? Who's consulted? Who has the final word?

If you wouldn't mind taking a couple of minutes and putting me on the right path, I might have some follow-up questions, if the chairman allows.

Mr. Richard Alway: I think it's fair to say that the majority of items that come to our board for consideration are initiated by citizens. In other words, people in the communities across Canada have an interest in some resource in their community and make inquiries of Ottawa with respect to whether this or that site might qualify for a national historic designation.

When that request comes forward, we look at it and we attempt to do a literature search to see what information exists on the site in question. A field representative is sent to the site to interview people, to look at the resource and to begin the process of documentation.

At this level, a certain screening takes place. So if something is clearly not fitting in with the criteria that have been well established over the years, there's then an attempt to communicate with the originator of the request and to explain to them why it doesn't appear to qualify, and to perhaps make suggestions to them if we think it is something that could be considered for local designation and recognition or perhaps for provincial recognition. Mind you, if something is likely to qualify for provincial recognition, it might also qualify for at least the next stage of consideration in our process.

After this preliminary work is done, a paper is worked up for board consideration. These papers are gathered together and the board meets twice a year. As an example, at our last meeting board members were required to read and mentally process 3,287 pages of material.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Pages.

Mr. Richard Alway: Yes. Pages, not items.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Richard Alway: But it's still a very heavy load.

The board considers the request against a group of criteria that are well established. The most important of them, however, is the definition of national significance. And that really is important, because something may seem from a local point of view and the point of view of the initiator of the request to have a very real significance—and it may be very real and it may be intense in terms of a certain area—but if it is not national, then it will not qualify under our program.

When we are able to make a favourable disposition with regard to the request, we send that recommendation forward to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and she then, by signing off on our minutes, formally designates the site as a national historic site. At that point, it then comes back to us for commemoration. We work on the plaque text, and we consult very broadly with regard to that text in the community and with experts. When that text then is ready, the plaque is cast and there is a public ceremony on site and the federal plaque is installed.

• 1630

Our board is meant to be not simply a citizens board per se, but also a board of experts. Therefore, on the board we have historians, academic historians, urban geographers, urban planners, people from the various disciplines that appear to be relevant with respect to the kind of material we're looking at and the type of judgment we are asked to make.

Our role as a board is advisory to the minister, but that is the process we go through. There are approximately 1,600 designations across the country at the moment. The majority are for sites, for structures, places. Some, however, are for persons, and others are for events such as the Battle of Lundy's Lane, or whatever.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are these criteria available to anybody who wants them?

Mr. Richard Alway: Yes, we have literature that we give out to people who are looking generally for information to see whether their idea could progress further.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm straying a bit; please indulge me. Has the board been asked to consider the legislative proposal currently before the Senate to create an historic site in the nation's capital, commemorating the persons case?

Mr. Richard Alway: A number of the persons in this case, the famous five—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, I'm not referring to that.

Mr. Richard Alway: This is the legislation with regard to the Senate.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

Mr. Richard Alway: I think that's before us perhaps right now. I can't remember whether it is one of the items. I've certainly seen documentation on it in the last three months, however.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But the board hasn't ruled on that yet.

Mr. Richard Alway: No, I don't think we have.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay.

The Chairman: If by any chance, Dr. Alway, you would find that you have, you can always advise the clerk—

Mr. Richard Alway: Yes, I'll look it up and put a status report in to the secretary.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a final question, if I may.

The Chairman: Yes, briefly.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've heard from you gentlemen that generally speaking you are fairly satisfied with the legislation as it stands. Are you also satisfied with the way the board has been able to administer itself and make recommendations and with the results of those recommendations? And if you are, or if you are not, do you sense that it will change under the agency, if that agency were to be created?

Mr. Richard Alway: As chair of the board, my own view is that I think we are very adequately supported. I think we have an easy relationship within the department. I think access to the minister and to the Secretary of State is excellent. As I said with regard to the legislation, we were thoroughly consulted. I have no requests to make in that area whatsoever.

I think there was a second part to your question.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are you satisfied that it will remain thus?

Mr. Richard Alway: I am, at this juncture, and I have no question about this, because I don't see the legislation, as I understand it after reading it, really shifting our relationship to the minister. If I thought for a moment that it was going to increase the distance between ourselves and the minister, I'd be concerned. I don't think it is, and I think we will be able to continue to build on the base that's very effectively established now.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I have one or two questions that are in fact requests for information. I believe that Quebec has a definition for something they call a “site patrimonial”, a heritage site. Does Canada have a corresponding definition or term, or corresponding terminology?

Quebec uses the terms “heritage site”, “heritage district” and “heritage monument”. In Quebec, a number of things can be designated “heritag”. Is there anything that corresponds to this at the federal level?

• 1635

[English]

Mr. Julian Smith: There are always problems with translation, but within ICOMOS Canada the word patrimonial has usually been translated just as “heritage”. The word “heritage” has implied cultural heritage in that way. Going back to least 25 years now, Parks Canada has applied the term “heritage” to both natural heritage and cultural heritage, and that in fact established a vocabulary in Canada that was not really common elsewhere in the world, but which has been gradually adopted by more and more other countries. That has therefore shifted the term “heritage” from being an equivalent to the word patrimonial in English in terms of Parks Canada.

For the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, something is designated or it's not designated. In France, for example, they have two levels, classé and reconnu. We don't adopt that system for the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, but within the Federal Heritage Building Program those two categories of classé and reconnu have been used for federal heritage properties.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you for your answer. Now I have a substantive question on the agency itself.

Mr. Smith, if I remember correctly—or if I understood correctly—you said you would like the powers of the agency to be broadened. This would mean it might have some policy-making powers. Did I indeed understand correctly?

[English]

Mr. Julian Smith: I felt that with the way this was drafted, it recognized at the policy level that Parks Canada has responsibilities not only for its own internal sites, but for what it calls the various heritage protection programs—federal heritage railway stations, federal heritage buildings, the heritage rivers program and so on—that have expanded the notion of the national heritage. With that, the agency has responsibility for the management and implementation of those programs. In my reading, that includes the kinds of policy aspects of those programs that are inseparable from the actual practice or the operation of those programs. But there isn't a specific clause that I would say points to breaking new ground in the policy area.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It might have been Mr. Anthony who discussed policy and planning.

[English]

Somebody referred to the fact that the bill didn't include a sufficient provision for policy and planning. I thought it was you.

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Anthony: I think I said that the Bill was not sufficiently clear on the division of responsibilities. Given that we want the Minister of Heritage Canada to keep what we might call a critical mass of powers in the area of policy affecting Canada's existing heritage, we would like the bill to be clearer and to provide greater flexibility. But I don't think it is the committee that can obtain that flexibility for people working at Parks Canada, with whom the issue has to be discussed.

Mr. Jacques Saada: My comments were not intended to get the committee to move things along. I simply wanted information.

Is there any risk in providing a clearer definition of policy- making responsibility? Is there any risk associated with such issues as a defining criteria for what can and what cannot be a historic site, which someone mentioned earlier?

[English]

Would there be dangers in terms of, for instance, bilingualism? Would there be dangers in terms of fees to be charged? Would there be dangers for the process of accessibility to parks? Don't you think that if we had a more rigid definition of powers in policy-making we might have a number of cracks that we spend a lot of time trying to fill?

• 1640

[Translation]

Mr. Brian Anthony: I suppose that every change carries some risks, as Mr. Alway said. But I think that establishing an agency, something that would give Parks Canada visibility and a distinct status, brings with it many advantages. Another positive aspect of having an agency is that we could improve relations between the agency and bodies responsible for other aspects of Heritage Canada's mandate.

As for the issue of human resources on parks, I think that is a question officials from Parks Canada should answer. I don't want to get involved in that sort of discussion.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Smith, you reminded us in your opening remarks that when we create these new entities or agencies, we have to do so with a view to the fact that things are going to keep evolving in the future and we have to create a mechanism that is subtle and supple enough to deal with things we can't fully anticipate. You reminded us of the way in which Parks Canada's been bounced around from pillar to post. I think before your time it was actually in the natural resources department at one point, too, if I'm not mistaken. It's nice to know that however we may restructure the government, Parks Canada will have some kind of independent entity; I think it's reassuring.

You also referred to a kind of evolving view of how we no longer distinguish so sharply between the natural environment and the human environment and you made a rather intriguing reference to cultural landscapes. I wasn't quite sure whether you could elaborate a little bit more on what actually that term means—or am I to understand that it is the coming together of these natural and human components? Could you give us a little more sense of that, because I think in doing so you might give us a sense of the future for this agency as well.

Mr. Julian Smith: ICOMOS, as I said, advises UNESCO at the international level, and UNESCO put together, a number of years ago, the world heritage convention and out of that there is a world heritage list, which are those sites the international community has decided are of international significance. And that policy was in fact partly drafted by Peter Bennett, who was a Parks Canada employee.

They have two advisory groups. ICOMOS advises on cultural sites, and ICOMOS comes out of a whole tradition of what the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the National Historic Sites Agency deal with. The criteria for the natural sites was developed by the IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which comes out of the whole national parks tradition of natural resource management.

About seven years ago a site was proposed for the world heritage list; it was the Lake District in England. They asked that it be considered both as a natural site and as a cultural site, and the World Heritage Committee said we have no criteria for that, we have no advisory group that can deal simultaneously with those two criteria. So over the last three or four years that committee has developed a new category called cultural landscapes, which contain within them elements of both natural and cultural significance, elements that are of international significance from a natural point of view and elements that are significant from a cultural point of view.

Just last week, the World Heritage Committee was reconvened under the chairmanship of another Parks Canada employee. Canada has, I would say, played the central role in the evolution of an international concept of cultural landscapes at which the IUCN and ICOMOS got together and said perhaps our separate criteria for cultural sites and for natural sites should themselves be re-examined in terms of whether they are compatible. This was in addition to having the new category, which are the sites that transcend the boundary.

• 1645

The idea of a cultural landscape is a term that has been used by geographers, but it's only recently become, I would say, of central concern to the heritage community. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is involved in looking at potential candidates in terms of cultural landscapes of national significance in Canada.

I teach a course in cultural landscapes at Carleton, where we're looking at the fact that different cultural groups have their own ways of developing and identifying cultural landscapes. It becomes a vehicle for addressing multicultural issues in the heritage field. That's something where, again, Canada is being looked at by the international community to provide leadership on, because we have a diverse cultural history and a diverse population that is dealing with that history and interpreting it.

Mr. John Godfrey: So it recognizes the fact that in most national parks, for instance, there has been, or is, usually some human element. Maybe the element wandered through it a number of years ago, but it's not as easy to sort these boundaries out.

Perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention, but is there anything in the new proposed legislation we're considering that would get in the way of that kind of evolution, as we understand cultural landscapes, or...?

Mr. Julian Smith: No, I would say...I mean, it's one of the things that I feel is strong about this. There are two situations that have to exist. One is that the national parks and the national historic sites have to be together within the agency. That's why I would support this name change to parks and historic sites agency.

Second, I would go back to the policy issue and say that I think theory and practice in conservation should be together within this agency. I understand the concern about having strong policy and legislation in the particular cultural heritage area; nonetheless, it seems to me that issues like cultural landscape transcend the boundary between the practice of conservation, of actually administering cultural landscapes, and the theory and the policy development that have to seize that concept and figure out how we develop policy and perhaps legislation that can deal with it.

In England, under Margaret Thatcher, English Heritage was created as an agency not dissimilar from this, but a lot of the policy activity was kept within the ministry. That didn't work. Over the years there was a duplication and then eventually a building up of a policy group within English Heritage to bring together the policy issues and the practical, operational, or management issues of historic sites.

That's more on the cultural heritage side.

The Chairman: Could we come back to that in the second round?

Mr. Pankiw, do you have any questions?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Very quickly, yes, for Mr. Alway and Mr. Anthony.

With regard to Mr. Smith's suggestion of the name Parks Canada, do you see that as an improvement over the Canadian Parks Agency? Is that something you could live with, or do you still think that would be inadequate?

Mr. Richard Alway: I think the Canadian Parks and Historic Sites Agency more adequately describes the breadth of activity the agency will be undertaking.

Having said that, I think the term Parks Canada now has a history and a broad public recognition. Commercial entities take years, and millions of dollars, to build up brand identification, and it seems to me that with the term Parks Canada, you have that now. It's been very effective.

So I'm somewhat reluctant to see that put aside at this juncture. It's something that I think is a resource in itself.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Anthony.

Mr. Brian Anthony: If I could speak to this point, I agree with Dr. Alway. The service has been known as Parks Canada for a very long time, and has a high public recognition as such. Despite what we call it, it will probably continue to be known as Parks Canada by the great Canadian public. That is unlikely to change, at least in our generation.

• 1650

It might be, however, as we discussed earlier, appropriate if we gave it a long title, at least for the purposes of understanding what its mandate is, such as Parks and Historic Sites Canada, but have the public know it as Parks Canada. But I just don't want to lose sight of what we see as being a very important element of the responsibilities of this agency. I wouldn't want that to be sort of glossed over and forgotten in the process.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pankiw.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, do you have a question?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There is something I was wondering. Would it be considered discriminatory if the agency established a two-tier entrance fee system: a special fee for people from the region and a higher fee for visitors? I was thinking about Ms. Vautour's question. She is quite right in saying that parks are frequently established in places that were not densely populated, and where there was high unemployment and a high poverty rate. In some ways, that is a pity.

Take Gaspé Park, for example. People no longer have enough money to go to Cap des Rosiers and to Cap Bon Ami. It's a real shame that people can no longer go there. Isn't there some way of giving local citizens access for let us say $1, and charge visitors $6, as is done in some other places?

Mr. Brian Anthony: I think you should raise the issue with Parks Canada officials. I know that this is done elsewhere. For example, though I would like to be more patriotic, I go to Cape Cod every year. The beaches I visit with my family have two rates—one for locals and one for visitors like us. And given the difference between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar, the visitors' rate is considerably higher. In Venise, for example, boats have a two- tier rate system so that locals can commute to town for work without paying a fortune, and without having to compete with tourists. So this sort of system does exist elsewhere. But I think you should raise the issue with Parks Canada people, who can discuss with you and provide more details.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, do you have any questions?

Mr. Mark Muise: I have a comment about the name “Parks Canada and Historic Sites”. When you have a family, you quickly realize

[English]

where the true power lies is sometimes in the chequebook and the bank account.

If you look on page 10, clause 21 says:

21.(1) There is hereby established an account in the accounts of Canada to be called the New Parks and Historic Sites Account.

So maybe you're already on your way there.

I'll leave that for a moment. I guess my next question is this. Someone made reference earlier—I think it was Mr. Anthony—about the importance of having the powers of the minister not diluted. Do you feel that the powers of the minister or the ministry are diluted by creating a parks agency?

Mr. Richard Alway: No, I don't think they are in this case at all. I think the minister will have the same degree of influence and connection with the work that goes on in this mandated area as she has now. In fact, the relationship through the agency to the minister may be more direct than it is now when you go through the various levels of ADMs and DMs and so on. So I don't see any problem with that, actually.

The Chairman: Mr. Smith, I know Mr. Anthony has expressed his views already, so have you got any comment or view on this?

Mr. Julian Smith: No. I would just support Mr. Alway's comment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do other committee members have questions? Mr. Bélanger? Mr. Saada?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I may, Mr. Chairman, but only if I may.

• 1655

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I would like to thank you very much for appearing today.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for coming here today.

[English]

Your views have certainly added to our comprehension of where your agencies and your boards stand on this issue, so it's extremely helpful to us.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, could you please give me five minutes? We have a few...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I ask nothing better.

[Editor's Note: The meeting continued in camera]