CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 21, 1998

• 1103

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.)): I would ask our three witnesses to come forward. We welcome Mr. Kevin McNamee, the President of the Canadian Nature Federation.

[English]

We also have Dr. Gordon Nelson and Ms. Mary Granskou, who are with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

I would invite you, if you have no objections, to make both presentations. We'll hear both presentations. We'll give you a few minutes for a succinct presentation and then we'll proceed to questions.

Members have indicated that many of them have commitments that they must adhere to, so we'll try to expedite things as much as possible without putting undue pressure on our witnesses.

You may begin, Mr. McNamee.

Mr. Kevin McNamee (Wildlands Campaign Director, Canadian Nature Federation): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

First of all, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to comment on Bill C-29. We believe it's a very important piece of legislation.

We also congratulate Parks Canada on the long-term work they put into developing this bill.

• 1105

I would like to point out to the committee that I am not the president of the Canadian Nature Federation. I appreciate the rise in category. However, I am the wildlands campaign director with the Canadian Nature Federation here in Ottawa.

The Canadian Nature Federation is Canada's national voice for naturalists. We have 40,000 members across Canada, a national board of trustees, and 150 affiliates.

The content of this brief was approved by our president, Cliff Wallis. He resides in Alberta and has about 25 years experience watching how Parks Canada manages our western national parks. It was also developed by Doug Cook, who was a member of our board and a member of the Banff and Bow Valley Task Force, which looked at the situation in Banff National Park. He was a member of the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, and he's also had a lot of experience in corporate reorganization, having worked for Imperial Oil.

I have about 15 years experience in dealing with national park issues, including national park establishment and management.

My point in going over that very briefly is that based on 50 years of experience in observing how Parks Canada manages Canada's national parks, we have undertaken a very considerable review of Bill C-29. We have also developed our brief, which we presented to you along with an executive summary of our recommendations. We developed this based on our extensive review of Parks Canada's initial concepts for this new agency, which were given to the public in 1996 and 1997. We also referred extensively to the recommendations of the Banff and Bow Valley Task Force on how this new Parks Canada agency should be structured. I would urge members of this committee to review that important task force's recommendations, which are on page 305 and 306 of their final report. They spent two years looking at how Parks Canada governs our most important and prestigious national park. Based on that experience, I think they have made some excellent recommendations, and in part we have formulated our brief around them.

The upshot for the Canadian Nature Federation, with respect to Bill C-29, is that we support a separate Parks Canada agency. We do not support Bill C-29 in its present form. We believe that a number of important recommendations are required to strengthen this bill. So we support the notion that is being advocated by the federal government for a separate Parks Canada agency, but we believe this bill must be strengthened.

We have two major issues and three short issues that I would like to address in our presentation.

Our first major issue relates to the core mandate that this new agency is to be given. It is our recommendation that there should be an explicit mandate stated within the body of Bill C-29, not relegated to the preamble. We just don't think that is effective enough, based on our experience. Parks Canada itself, presently, does not have a legislative mandate on how it is to undertake its activities.

There is the National Parks Act, but it does not mention the agency itself. The United States, in its organic act for the National Park Service, has a very clear mandate. We believe that the world's first national park agency, which Canada created in 1911, deserves one finally after 87 years.

We should recognize that this new separate agency is an experiment. It's one of three that were announced by the finance minister in March 1996. It's an experiment with the public trust that is inherent in Canada's national parks. Hence, when we look back on how effective this agency has been, we need critical benchmarks against which to measure how well the agency has done its job in establishing new parks, managing these parks, interpreting these parks and managing visitor use, and in meeting our global obligations under things such as the World Heritage Convention.

So we have recommended in our brief that parts of the preamble, with some modifications, be moved into the main text to constitute a core mandate for the agency so that it's clear to everyone within the body of the act what this agency must accomplish.

• 1110

It's also important because this new agency envisions setting up contractual arrangements, new agreements, and memoranda of understanding with various partners. It must be explicitly clear to those partners who enter into arrangements to deliver park services what the mandate of this agency is, and that should be in the legislation.

By putting the mandate directly into the legislation it also provides direction to the chief executive officer on what critical staff he or she must hire to deliver the mandate. The CEO has very extensive powers under this bill to hire and fire people. He must be directed to hire the kind of people who are needed to protect and maintain our parks.

I also draw your attention to the fact that 8 of 38 Canadian national parks are not protected under the National Parks Act. Of the 220,000 square kilometres protected as wilderness, 20% is not under the National Parks Act. Some of these parks have been outside the act for almost two decades. Some of them date back to when Prime Minister Jean Chrétien struck the initial agreements. Therefore, it's very important that this legislation give Parks Canada the legislative direction to protect those national parks that are outside the act.

Finally, we've also suggested that a specific reference must be made to the policy that governs the national parks. Right now it only has a general statement about operational principles and guidelines. The specific document, which was approved in 1994 by this federal government, is an excellent one and it should be approved.

Our second major issue relates to the accountability of Parks Canada for delivering its core mandate. I should point out that there has been real improvement in this area since Parks Canada first tabled its initial idea for an agency in 1996. And let's be clear: Parks Canada must be accountable to the Canadian public for what is a public trust. National parks are a public trust. They are established for the benefit, the use, and the enjoyment of Canadians, and not just for visitor use. Ecological values, economic values, spiritual values, values in terms of protecting aboriginal lands for traditional ways of life—

Under this bill the only agency that will report to Parliament and the Canadian public on how well Parks Canada is doing in meeting its mandate is Parks Canada. While some of the past State of the Parks reports are very effective and communicate the threats to the agency, it's important that there be some external review. Hence, we have recommended that the Auditor General must report not only on how well human resources are managed but also on how well the agency meets its core mandate as we have described it.

A second public accountability mechanism is the proposed biannual forums. We welcome these. However, we recommend that the chief executive officer must respond in writing within 120 days to the formal recommendations made to this forum. Otherwise, I would in fact say to a certain degree, “What's the point?” The Canadian public must have a response to the recommendations it's made.

We've also recommended a number of public advisory councils. I'm not going to go into detail because the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which follows me, has made some extensive recommendations on that issue. However, I would point out that we agree with some of their suggestions that there should be public consultation on such things as the corporate plan, the State of the Parks report, and, as we've also pointed out, on new parks agreements.

It is our opinion that Parks Canada does an excellent job consulting with aboriginal people, local communities, and other governments on the establishment of new national parks. However, the public is not allowed an opportunity to review new park agreements, and sometimes the proposed boundaries for new national parks are given to us as a fait accompli. So we have suggested in our recommendations that new park agreements should be reviewed by the parks advisory council.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by very briefly touching on three what I would call short snapper issues. First, on the new parks and historic sites fund, I testified before Parliament about 10 years ago on the creation of a citizens' fund to help fund a new park establishment. When I was with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society we objected to that fund for a number of reasons. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Canadian Nature Federation I am pleased to fully endorse the establishment of a new parks and historic sites fund. In our brief we have pointed out some of the potential problems with this fund, but we will closely monitor how this fund will operate.

• 1115

However, we have recommended that subsections 33(3) and (4) be deleted from the act. These state that the parks fund cannot be used by Parks Canada unless the action proposed has been approved by Treasury Board in a corporate plan. This robs the parks fund of the very flexibility that we understand it was designed for and which we would hope this fund is for.

For example, when Ontario and the federal government were very close to establishing the Bruce Peninsula National Park in 1987, a critical piece of ecological land, owned by a private landowner, came up for sale. Ontario didn't jump to protect this land because they were going to give it up as a national park. The feds didn't move to acquire the land because they did not have a federal-provincial agreement, and as I understand it Treasury Board guidelines prohibit Parks Canada from acquiring land until there's a federal-provincial agreement.

Unfortunately, it seems to us that stipulation still applies to this new parks fund. So Treasury Board in effect has a veto, through its approval of a corporate plan, on Parks Canada possibly acquiring important land across Canada that is threatened unless they have a federal-provincial agreement. So we believe that section of the act must be dropped if this fund is to have any effect.

Second, under the definition of other heritage areas, we have suggested the addition of something called Canadian landmarks. There is one Canadian landmark called the Pingos of Tuktoyaktuk that is in the Inuvialuit settlement region. This is an existing protected area managed by Parks Canada, and therefore Canadian landmarks, as a concept, must be in this act.

I was discussing some issues with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society earlier, and it strikes us that one of the things also missing here is the concept of the very existence of national park reserves. These are lands administered as national parks but held in reserve pending the settlement of native land claims. There are many national parks that are national park reserves, so I think you should ask Parks Canada about that concept.

Finally, we do not like the new name, Canadian Parks Agency. We recommend that it be called the Parks Canada Agency. Both of our organizations support that. This is the 25th year of Parks Canada, which was created by the Prime Minister. I fail to understand why in this anniversary year we're dropping the name. It's a well-known name, and, as we point out, this will be fifth name in ten years that has governed this agency. Talk about a problem with identity.

I'd like to conclude by pointing out that this agency is an experiment. Many of our national parks are threatened from internal and external threats. It's my understanding that a new State of the Parks report will be tabled in the House of Commons. I would urge this committee to build on its work in reviewing Bill C-29 by having some witnesses in to discuss the state of the lands, waters, and historic sites that we're talking about.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McNamee.

I'm sorry you didn't accept the promotion I offered you.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: It doesn't pay as much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It's good to be a volunteer, though.

We'll go on to Ms. Granskou.

Ms. Mary Granskou (Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Mary Granskou and I'm the executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. I'm here on behalf of a committee of our board of trustees, and I can assure you that our review of the Parks Agency Act has been a top priority for our board of directors.

Dr. Gordon Nelson has extensive experience with our organization and on parks issues in Canada and internationally. He is also here to represent our organization and answer any questions you may have.

As an introduction, it's the 35th anniversary of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. We are one of the oldest conservation organizations in Canada. We have decades of experience on parks management issues and we consider Bill C-29 to be tremendously important for the future of how our national parks are managed into the next millennium.

We have 10,000 members across Canada and ten regional chapters. Our brief was prepared by a committee of five of our trustees, three of whom have extensive experience as lawyers with legislative issues. One is a former chief of staff to B.C.'s minister of both aboriginal affairs and environment, and Dr. Gordon Nelson is an esteemed professor at the University of Waterloo.

• 1120

I just wanted to give you a sense of our organization and the time we've put into preparing our brief.

I'd like to refer you to the five major points I'm going to address today. Of course we have numerous suggestions for the legislation, but we have five major points. As a preface to that, however, it's the position of our organization that we want to support this legislation, but we feel key deficiencies need to be addressed in order for it to be an effective instrument to guide the management of Parks Canada in the years to come.

The five points are as follows. First, the preamble is very strong, but like the Canadian Nature Federation, we believe it needs a few changes. Also, it's very important that it be adopted as the purpose of the act, and I will elaborate on that in a moment.

Second, there are serious deficiencies in the act's general public consultation and its failure, in our view, to establish a body of knowledgeable people to assist Parks Canada in carrying out its mandate.

Third, there needs to be more explicit reference to the minister's direction to the agency being consistent with this act. This is very important.

Fourth, we believe the agency is a public institution. Canadians value national parks, so much so that in polls Canadians have recognized national parks as a stronger symbol of national identity than even hockey.

The public is on side for our national parks to be funded through appropriations, and we are asking that a minimum of 75% of funds into the future to guide and direct Parks Canada be provided in appropriations. It's very important that the security of Parks Canada, given the budget cuts that many departments have faced, be provided for in this act.

Finally, it's very important, and we have a tremendous opportunity here, to clarify government accountability to policy that is already in the act as proposed but needs to be clarified.

We have several other points to make as well. One of those is the name change that Kevin mentioned.

I'd like to refer you to page 3 of our paper. Our first point is on the preamble, which we strongly believe should be incorporated into the purpose of the act.

As an aside, our organization has recognized standing in the courts on litigation matters related to national parks. One of those was our Wood Buffalo case, and I'm sure you're aware of others. If not, you can refer to the draft, which gives you the context of particular cases we have been involved in.

We feel the preamble, which is often a cause of dispute in the courts—whether it should be considered guiding legislation or not—needs to be explicit in the act. It's our view that litigation is a poor way to establish that principle or precedent.

We are recommending that section 1 be followed by a new section 2 that simply states the national interest from the preamble is adopted as the purpose of this act. That would solve that issue from our perspective. We give particular wording changes for several clauses, but I will not go into those at this point. We can explore that in questions if you would like an explanation as to our rationale.

However, I would like to make one point related to the preamble. We feel strongly that Canada's first nations should be recognized in the preamble to this act. You've heard from Kevin, and the first nations certainly play an important role on a government-to-government basis, particularly in the north in the establishment and management of national parks, and will continue to play an important role in other related protected areas under the rubric of Parks Canada's mandate.

We suggest that a separate clause be added to the legislation to “recognize Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions and aboriginal connection to place”. We certainly would encourage you to query the first nations representatives on these points when they present to the committee. I'm sure they will raise them themselves, but it's important that that role be recognized.

• 1125

The second point I'd like to make relates to sections 4 and 5 of the act, which is the minister's direction to the agency. One could argue that in subsections 4(2) and 5(1)—ministerial direction—it is implied that it is consistent with the purpose of this act, but we are suggesting that it be explicit. So our two proposed amendments, one of which relates to subsection 4(2) and the other to subsection 5(1), are that it be specifically included in the clauses that the direction given by the minister is consistent with the purpose of this act. Then there will be no cause for any deviation or misinterpretation. Again, this is based on past experience. We feel that clarity is needed in a very diverse and rich system of national parks in order to provide day-to-day guidance.

The third point we would like to raise is related to accountability to policy, and that is the current section 6 of the act. We are pleased to see that policy is being recognized in the legislation, and we are suggesting some very simple wording changes that would clarify the relation to the operational policies and guidelines. We would like to see them specifically scheduled to the act, and those are the current operational policies and guidelines, which are excellent.

Our organization and the Canadian Nature Federation and others were extensively involved in drafting and providing input into those guidelines, and we would like to see that made explicit in the act. That would take us a great way down the road on numerous issues that all of us are struggling with today. I'm pleased that we have numerous Parks Canada representatives here, but any of them could attest to the struggles. One park is Banff National Park, and I'm sure you're aware of some of the issues. Making that explicit in the legislation would assist Parks Canada and the public in ensuring that the guidelines and the policy are implemented effectively. That would strengthen the clout of the current policy and is something we would welcome.

The next point I'd like to spend some time on is an area that we and many organizations have raised, that the agency in its creation provides an opportunity for building on the public consultation and on the link with the public and with knowledgeable people in the public sector. Right now there are numerous organizations in Canada with over three decades of meaningful and extensive experience on parks management issues. On the chasing opportunities side of the ledger, we feel an opportunity would be missed if a body of knowledgeable people is not appointed to work with Parks Canada on the important issues of the day. There's a tremendously sophisticated knowledge base that could be accessed as part of that advisory committee or body that we are recommending be established.

During both of the cross-Canada public consultations on the establishment of the agency, the issue of establishing an advisory committee came up many times. In the last round it was one of the key issues that was raised repeatedly across the country, yet that point did not make it into the summary consultation report that we've alerted the minister to.

The point is that there are other models. In particular I would refer to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, which has been in place since the early 1900s. It has provided meaningful assistance on issues related to historic sites. That board has been in place since the early 1900s. We're saying it's time for a similar body to provide meaningful and ongoing assistance on the national parks side.

• 1130

What we're not looking for is a board that's going to get between the CEO and the minister and interfere with that relation. We want a clear, streamlined relationship between the CEO and the minister, and we're asking for a board that would be beholden largely to the CEO of the agency.

Certainly, we'd love to explore that issue further with you in questions, but just to provide some specifics here—I refer you to page 6 of our brief—we suggest that a new section be added to the act that would specifically call for the establishment of a board. Whether or not it's called—this is what we're suggesting—the national parks ecological integrity interpretation board is not as important as its function.

I will go through the important points in terms of what we believe would be a manageable list of terms they could establish and functions they could serve.

One point is the development of systems plans, corporate plans. These will be extremely important to how Parks Canada carries out its mandate. Parks management plans are tabled in the House, as you know. We have the annual report, biannual forums, and several other points we raised as well.

We also suggest that a new section 7, which would deal with public consultation, be added to the act. We do not feel that the current proposal for a biannual forum will provide the kind of meaningful public input in key decisions that we would certainly like to see. So we're recommending that a new section be added to the act that specifies how the CEO would conduct things and what issues would be addressed with the public on a biannual basis, alternated with sessions with the minister on a biannual basis as well.

The fifth major point, as I mentioned earlier, is on page 8 of our brief. It's the issue of public funding.

We feel that clause 19—this is extremely important—needs a clear statutory statement that a minimum of 75% of operational funding will be provided by Treasury Board for Parks Canada.

Parks are a public institution. During the Depression days, the minister of the time was able to access treasury funds for the national park system. We feel that in this day and age, given our current government's financial situation, surely we could provide the funding that's necessary for a system of national parks that Canadians hold very near and dear to their hearts.

The final point I would like to raise is the issue of the new name: Canadian Parks Agency. I would certainly like to refer you to our name as well, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. We certainly feel that from our organization's perspective, we would welcome Parks Canada retaining its current name. We also feel that it enjoys public support both within Canada and abroad, so why fix what isn't broken and why spend public funds on that particular task?

Thank you very much. I look forward to questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you very much.

We'll proceed to questions. Thank you, Madame Vautour, for having recognized that our colleague, Mr. Muise, has to leave early, so we'll direct him to ask the first question.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank our witnesses. They gave very interesting presentations. Often, we debate things within our own group. Sometimes, we don't have the points of view that this type of information can lead us to discuss.

I would just like to ask a question about the advisory council. You mentioned that you would like to see a clear, streamlined discussion between the CEO and the minister. How and where would you see the advisory committee situated. How would you see its role?

• 1135

Having sat on a few advisory committees, maybe one of the frustrations is that sometimes you're not a board of directors, so you don't have those powers. I think sometimes there's a sense of frustration.

Maybe there are two questions there, and I'd like you to address those.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Specifically, our committee discussed this at length. We feel that the most workable option is that the advisory council be beholden to the CEO. So what we propose is that the advisory council review and provide guidance on the list of mandate responsibilities that we have outlined in our brief. So the advisory council would be beholden to the CEO.

But then, under the public consultation section we're proposing, we're asking for the minister to convene consultative forums on a biannual basis with the public. Our understanding, of course, is that this advisory council would be involved in the planning and helping to prepare the terms under which this would be carried out.

So there is a link to the minister, but we're not getting in the way of the CEO's relationship to the minister, because we feel that those lines of authority should be very clear. We certainly want to support that. There should not be an intermediary between the minister and the CEO. We don't feel that would serve the functioning of the agency on a day-to-day basis.

Does that answer your question?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I would just like to first of all echo that.

The second thing that's critical to realize is that Parks Canada is a regulatory agency. So under the National Parks Act, it has a whole set of regulations that allow it to carry out its activities.

During the public consultation, the question of establishing a board of directors responsible for the agency was put to the public. I know that both of our organizations objected to that in part because we felt that this would fetter, if that's the right word, the role of the minister and the agency in enforcing the regulations.

So a board of directors then would become responsible. Well, this is not the way Parks Canada functions. I think that's important to keep in mind.

Mr. Mark Muise: The next question that comes to mind is this. Parks Canada has had in its mandate that it would complete the parks system by 2000. That's a concern I've had, and we don't have much time left. Do you see any way of addressing that in this new parks agency?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: One of the issues that the Canadian Nature Federation's program focuses on is completing the national parks system. Both of our organizations have extensive experience in that area.

I don't think the agency legislation itself is going to solve the problem of trying to get national parks established quicker. You have to secure the support of aboriginal people, local communities, and territorial and provincial governments. There's a whole range of issues to work out.

However, I think one of our recommendations is that one of the sections be amended to make it the job of Parks Canada to complete its system of national parks. It says “establish”. I think someone might be able to argue that they've already established a network. So the word “complete” must be added to that legislation.

The second thing is that on a number of occasions over the last 15 years there have been various things, such as the federal Minister of the Environment's task force on park establishment, the recent report of the Auditor General of Canada, and the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, which have all recommended that sometimes the notion of transferring the land from the provinces to the federal government is an impediment to establishing national parks and alternative means should be looked for.

Parks Canada argues they can't do it because they have to establish parks where they own the land as per the act. Our interpretation of some of the sections here is that Parks Canada is allowed to enter into memoranda of understanding with other jurisdictions to possibly pursue alternative arrangements. I'm sure Parks Canada didn't write the legislation that way, but I think you might be able to interpret it that way. It will be a very interesting debate in coming years.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Nelson, did you wish to address this?

Dr. Gordon Nelson (University of Waterloo): No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Pankiw.

• 1140

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McNamee, I would like you to clarify something for me. In regard to the clause in the act by which Treasury Board could veto Parks Canada decisions effectively, what section was that?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: It's subclauses 33(3) and (4).

If you look into the new parks and historic sites fund section, it talks there about the corporate plan. I can get that for you in a minute, to clarify it.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: That's sufficient, thanks.

Ms. Granskou, I'm unable to follow your logic as to why specific reference to aboriginals should be included in the act. Could you try to clarify that for me?

Ms. Mary Granskou: I think Kevin mentioned—and certainly I encourage you to explore this with first nations directly—that first nations now have extensive responsibilities under co-management agreements in national park preserves, particularly in the north.

A member of our committee has extensive experience in aboriginal affairs in British Columbia, and he and others in particular felt there was a lack of recognition of the role of first nations.

However phrased, we felt that it certainly needed to be recognized in the preamble. There are a couple of other areas where we also suggest that it be explored with first nations and how that might be thoughtfully addressed within the body of the act itself.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Are you suggesting that if aboriginals are not recognized in the preamble, that somehow compromises the co-management agreements?

Ms. Mary Granskou: If you look at the preamble, it spells out the general spirit of the act, its role to preserve commemorative integrity and ecological integrity in historic sites, its important role in the identity of Canadians. We felt there was a piece missing and that it was important to recognize the role in particular of first nations and aboriginal peoples with respect to national parks. It's a missing link in the story.

Also, in terms of the particular legalities of that, Kevin or Gordon might have something else to add to this, but our general sense was that certainly we wanted to encourage you to consult with first nations directly. It's not our role to speak on behalf of first nations, but we are working very closely with many of them. It's important that their role be recognized, just as the role of the Canadian people is recognized in the act.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Do one of the other presenters have something to say? So far all I'm hearing, really, is that it's a feel-good statement with no real effect.

Dr. Gordon Nelson: I'd like to comment, if I may. If you look at paragraph (e) in the preamble, it reads as follows:

(e) to commemorate places, people and events of national historic significance, including those before European settlement,

That is quite different from recognizing Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions and aboriginal connection to place.

In other words, to add something like “to recognize Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions and aboriginal connection to place” is a much more explicit recognition of what is a growing role by first nations people in the whole natural heritage and cultural heritage field. It's more than prior to European settlement.

They have their own views on land. They do conservation actively in many ways other than through co-management arrangements with Parks Canada. I think that should be recognized. I think in the next 20 years there will be lots of ways in which groups like first nations make contributions to natural heritage, outside Parks Canada efforts.

So it's more of a core addition or a fundamental addition to the act. It recognizes the current role and the future role of first nations much more than a phrase like “those before European settlement”.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I think it's important to point out that many of the national parks that have been established in the last 15 years have only been established because the first nations living in those areas have agreed, in essence, to allow that land to become part of the national park system. Through many of the most recent comprehensive land claim settlements the only reason we have gotten some of our national parks, such as Aulavic, Ivvavik, Tuktut Nogait— they've only been established, in essence, because the federal government, as a result of its policies on land claim settlements, has achieved an agreement with those first nations.

• 1145

It effectively sends a message that Parliament considers and thanks the first nations for some very important contributions. Hopefully, Torngat Mountains National Park will some day become a reality. That's a third of the homeland of the Labrador Inuit.

Mr. Chairman, may I also clarify something with respect to your earlier question? It's in fact subclause 21(3) of Bill C-29 that we particularly object to with respect to the new parks and historic sites fund. Subsection 21(3) states:

(3) Subject to the approval by the Treasury Board of the corporate plan prepared under section 33, amounts may, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, be paid out of the New Parks and Historic Sites Account

So Treasury Board has a veto on how we spend our money that is raised from the public through revenue to acquire new areas.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If that's it, let's have Madam Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): I want to thank you for your presentation; it was very informative. I will switch to French now.

[Translation]

Mr. McNamee, you mentioned at the beginning of your presentation that eight parks were created by the prime minister, when he was the minister, and that they are not covered by the Act. Could you name them, please?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: The prime minister created three national parks: Pukaskwa in Ontario, Gros Morne in Newfoundland and Pacific Rim in British Columbia. There were many reasons why these parks did not come under the Act, one of which was that we would have had to enter into agreements with the aboriginal peoples. I'm having trouble speaking French.

[English]

Also, there are some existing national parks such as Aulavic, Tuktut Nogait, and Wapusk that cannot be established under the act until a bill is brought into the House of Commons. In fact, you're going to be debating a bill with respect to Tuktut Nogait. Also, for Bruce Peninsula National Park and Grasslands National Park, the land acquisition process is incomplete, so Parks Canada has made a determination not to establish those yet.

I can tell you personally that in the case of Grasslands, this is of great frustration to the people of Val Marie, Saskatchewan, who were promised the economic benefits of this national park.

I think that covers it.

[Translation]

Ms. Angela Vautour: I support the major thrust of your presentations. Do you have any concerns about the fact that the Agency guarantees employees their positions for only two years? Are you afraid that after two years the Agency could lose all this experienced personnel if a contract is given to a company that is interested in making a profit, rather than protecting the environment and our national parks?

[English]

Ms. Mary Granskou: Mon français is a little too weak to speak in French, unfortunately.

My response would be that our organization has concerns on several fronts related to personnel issues. One of these concerns, as Kevin said very well, was that the establishment of the agency is an experiment and it needs review.

In clause 35 we feel there should be a five-year report on the overall performance of the agency and the Government of Canada in relation to this particular issue.

• 1150

The other specific recommendation we make, particularly on personnel issues—and I refer you to page 7 of our brief—is that we feel it's very important that those engaged particularly in research not be disciplined for their findings. This is a sensitive issue that we wouldn't raise, except it's based on experience. All our suggested amendments are. We feel strongly enough about this that in particular we feel an addition to paragraph 13(a) is important to add to this act. It would read:

but no person shall be disciplined or terminated for their research findings or for making their research findings public.

That only addresses those engaged in the scientific field. There will be other issues that come up, and I'm sure PSAC is going to be addressing that thoughtfully for the hearings.

Kevin or Gord, you may have other points to add to this.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I have a couple of comments. First of all, I think it's important to recognize that there has already been a tremendous loss of experience in corporate knowledge from Parks Canada across this country. Three rounds of budget cuts, the Mazankowski budget cuts, the loss of Green Plan funding programs I and II, the reorganization of Parks Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage—all have had a toll on the agency. In part that's why we support a separate Parks Canada, to get it off into its own world.

Unfortunately, I think there's nothing in this bill that guarantees, if Parks Canada doesn't meet its revenue targets and the appropriations are maintained at a low level, that we're not going to lose more. I think that's why we argue that the preamble must become the core mandate. There's nothing in this act to suggest who the chief executive officer must retain as a priority to manage and establish and interpret our national parks.

If you put interpretation into the preamble— First of all, as we point out, in 1920 when they formed the National Parks Act they put it right into the main clause of the National Parks Act. They said education is a prime function of our national parks. Now we relegate it to the preamble for this agency; yet that's a critical function.

I think in part we would not necessarily lose more people if the core mandate specified what we are supposed to do with those national parks.

It's also important to point out that there are already contracts. Let's not look at this and think that there are no contracts and no private operators in the national parks. However, there's been a lot of debate over that point. I would argue that one of the reasons there have been a lot of media stories and a lot about privatization and commercialization and Canadians have expressed a lot of concern is because Parks Canada doesn't have a council to go to and get those people to fully understand what's going on with respect to these changes and communicate them. Let's not look at an advisory council as just telling Parks Canada what to do, but Parks Canada using that council to enable speakers to go forth and talk to Canadians about those changes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Nelson.

Dr. Gordon Nelson: My point was Kevin's last one. I think the consultative mechanism through the knowledgeable people or advisory group and through public consultation in the forum on a structured and regular basis, with responses coming from the minister to the forum, are both safeguards in respect of the point you make. It provides an opportunity to consult with knowledgeable people and also with the public about the directions in which personnel and hiring and staffing are going.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you have a question, Ms. Vautour?

[English]

Ms. Angela Vautour: The reason I'm very concerned is I've been a Parks Canada employee for years and years, so I know what takes place in the parks.

Right now there's a company called Serco, which is probably taking over a provincial park in New Brunswick called the Rocks. Are you concerned that with an agency like this a company from the United Kingdom could come in and manage under the agency?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I think it's pretty clear under the legislation and under the National Parks Act that no private company could ever take over that land. I think it's also pretty clear, given some of the statements in C-29 and in our suggestions, that a company could not come in and fully, effectively manage the whole national park. I think we have some confidence there, and the public won't accept that. There is no question. No politician would ever get away with that.

• 1155

What becomes the issue is what kinds of services are contracted out and to what amount. I would suggest, again, reading the report of the Banff and Bow Valley task force— on page 305 they go into a number of specific recommendations as to how contracting should go on. One of the things they say is don't contract out core services: education, interpretation, resource management, and things of that nature. They are essential functions of the agency. Again, I would go back to our recommendations to suggest that this would provide some level of comfort.

Ms. Mary Granskou: This reinforces the need to have the preamble adopted as a purpose to the act. It all comes from clarity of mission, and all those issues related to parks management flow from that. We can't underscore enough how important this is and how important it was during the consultations for reasons we have just suggested.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Ms. Vautour.

Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiskouata—Les Basques, BQ): First of all, we are very pleased to hear from the environmental groups today. Your participation is essential to our study of this bill, and the Bloc Québécois was particularly interested in hearing from you.

One of the main concerns we all have is environmental protection and preservation. The Auditor General has already pointed out some problems with the government's management plans. In commenting on subclause 6(2), the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society called for long-term plans and better control of these issues.

Could you tell us how we could ensure that the situation will be improved so that, in five or ten years, we can say that we have solved the problems identified by the Auditor General, taken his criticism into account and ensured that we are able to meet the Agency's objectives? You already spoke about this briefly, but I would like to hear more both with respect to advisory groups and the responsibilities of the Auditor.

[English]

The Chairman: Who wants to tackle it? Mr. McNamee.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: First of all, I think it would be nice if the federal government finally followed through on its commitment in red book II to establish an independent panel to assess ecological integrity. That will contain a lot of the answers.

The second thing is that if you go to Parks Canada's current national business plan, which I assume would effectively become the corporate plan with the new agency, they make commitments to establish, for each of the national parks, indicators of ecological integrity: fish habitat, stream quality, etc. Then we should put in place something that measures those indicators from time to time.

The third is to put in place management programs that deal with the threats we already know exist in our national parks. The 1994 State of the Parks report, which was tabled in the House of Commons, gives us a clear indication of the internal and external threats. They should be dealt with.

Fourth, we have to link individual park business plans to the achievement of the management plan objectives in dealing with those ecological indicators. Too often, business plans deal with things that are irrelevant to protecting the environment. So our precious appropriations and revenues must be directed to solving the problems that threaten our parks. I'm not saying we should put it all there and have nothing for visitors, but a good portion of it must be there. Those would be some of my suggestions.

The Chairman: Ms. Granskou.

• 1200

Ms. Mary Granskou: That's a very good question. There are a couple of things I would add.

One is a minimum of 75% of operational funds coming from Treasury Board. It is our firm belief and our view that we do not want to see our park system being held up as cash cows to generate revenue first. The first goal is to maintain them for future generations.

Second, our specific and explicit recommendation that research results be expediently made publicly available and not be any cause for any dismissals is very important to ensuring that those management decisions are made in a public process. We have seen too many scientific results, and I'm not saying across the board certainly, but there are enough cases for which we feel the science needs to be made available immediately. Then we proceed from there. As well, there were the other suggestions Kevin made.

The final thing is that the advisory council, we're suggesting, will help in expediently addressing those issues. In many cases it's the lack of speed by which those issues are being addressed that is at issue in numerous national parks. We have to pick up the pace, and we feel that the public can play a thoughtful role in moving that agenda forward.

Dr. Gordon Nelson: Just returning again to the preamble, I think including the preamble in the act would help a great deal here because it would provide a basis for long-term planning.

The other point I would make is that it's been a long time since the systems plans were put in place by Parks Canada. That process really began in the 1960s, and it's been exceedingly useful in getting us to the point where we're actually asking about how long it will take to complete a system.

One side of the planning process that has not been sufficiently recognized is raised in some of these questions. That is the whole means by which you achieve the objectives.

In the past, it's been public purchase, total public control, and a very strong and predominant role by Parks Canada. What's happening with the first nations entry and with co-management and shared management is a move into much more participatory methods of protecting natural heritage.

If you have something like a firm coming into Newfoundland and taking up the management of a park, if it does that in the context of a set of goals and objectives that are in the act, then there is a check and a balance in that respect.

If we have various kinds of reserves of the type that have now started in the United States under different kinds of management, including private stewardship and private ownership, which is possible with the Wildlife Act in Canada, then as long as that strong statement of purpose is in the preamble of the act you have a basis for calling those different modes of operation to task in achieving the national objectives.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Do you think it will be possible to reconcile an increase in the number of visitors and the development of tourism and commercial activities with park conservation and protection? Are you optimistic about the future in light of this new reality the bill seems to describe, without necessarily being on that side of the issue? What is your assessment of the situation? You have probably already mentioned a number of conditions in answering the first question, but I would appreciate if you would mention other points that could ensure an acceptable degree of success.

[English]

Ms. Mary Granskou: First, that's a very thoughtful question and it's a reality that Parks Canada needs to face, whether or not they are an agency or a part of the department.

We'll have to look at more quotas in the future. We need to look at how we move more people around in ways that do not damage the environment, or low elevation habitat in particular in Banff National Park, which is the most heavily visited park.

There are other models in other parks. I would refer you to Denali in Alaska, where great numbers of people are moved around on a bus system, where interpretation is provided very effectively, and where cars in particular are limited to a great extent within the park. So there are ways to move people around and give people a quality visit or experience without generating tremendous environmental damage in terms of of the trail system and elsewhere.

It also has to deal with how national parks are marketed. In particular, as an example, I would refer you to the Banff and Bow Valley study. While that was under way there were tremendous dollars being put into the continued marketing of Banff National Park. That only increases the visitor pressure at a time when sensitive issues have been recognized by the Prime Minister that need to be addressed within that particular park. So one hand needs to work more with the other in terms of how we're promoting.

• 1205

There is a quota system right now in Pacific Rim in particular, but these are management issues that need to be very thoughtfully addressed. I get back to the fundamentals of what's the best available science and what are they telling us about what grizzly bears need, etc.—important issues.

Dr. Gordon Nelson: That's a really good question, and it's a fundamental question. I've been watching parks for 35 years and that problem has been there from the beginning, and I think it will always be there. I don't think there's a solution to reaching for a balance between visitors and the education, enlightenment, and enjoyment of visitors through their experience in the park and the impacts they have on us. So one has to be constantly vigilant.

One of the things that's improved in that respect since the amendments to the act in 1988 and the introduction of the term “ecological integrity” is that it provides a much better ecosystem basis or natural basis for thinking about these impacts. It makes it possible to think about them not just in terms of how they occur within a park, but what their relations are with that park and the area around it, the lands and waters around it. There are clear connections along river valleys and through woodlots and so on between the park and the surrounding area.

In that context it's possible to think about visitors and their impacts in parks and opportunities outside and where they should be and lay the basis for much more cooperative planning. I think over the long haul that may be very important in modifying the impacts visitors have on parks and, in the process of that, promoting more good social and economic relationships between the park and surrounding area.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I used to be a student of Gordon Nelson's and 20 years ago we were debating this issue in class.

I have a couple of things. First of all, I would point out that Parks Canada's current national business plan envisions reducing the level of use in some of our national parks that are overcrowded using different tourism promotion programs, either to get people into the shoulder season or to go see some of the provincial attractions. Why bring everybody to one federal national park? Why not promote use of the broader region?

The second thing is quotas. Ms Granskou mentioned Pacific Rim. Quotas are important not only to protect the environment but to retain a quality experience, and that's part of Parks Canada's mandate. You wouldn't want to fly to Vancouver, go to Pacific Rim, and then hike one of the best trails in Canada and have 50 people surrounding you. So we need to focus on both.

The third thing is sometimes it's not clear to Parks Canada staff if they're really being backed by Parliament and senior managers to implement the kinds of measures necessary to control visitor use. Let's be clear. Visitor use is the most reported significant ecological impact on Canada's national parks. It doesn't mean it's the biggest impact, but it's the most common, the most reported. We need to deal with it.

We've suggested to clarify that parks staff do have a role in managing visitor use and tourism. We've suggested in our brief an additional clause to what is now the preamble, which would become part of the act, and that is this. The core mandate of the agency is:

(m) to manage visitor use and tourism to ensure both the maintenance of ecological and commemorative integrity, and a quality experience by visitors in such heritage areas for this and future generations.

Make sure the Parks Canada employee has a very clear understanding that Parliament wants him or her to manage visitor use—not exclude visitors but manage it, and that's missing from the mandate.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—Laprairie, Lib.): Thank you for your presentations and your answers. I would be very interested, Mr. Chairman, to hear the counter-arguments to the two proposals that have been put forward here—one on changing the nature of the preamble to include it in the body of the bill, and the other regarding the advisory council. I'd really like to hear those.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will have an opportunity to hear the counter-arguments of the representatives of Parks Canada. However, if you wish, we could ask our witnesses to tell us what they think the counter-arguments are.

• 1210

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would be very pleased to do it, but I don't know whether it is fair to these witnesses. In any case, I am basically interested in hearing out these arguments because what we heard this morning seemed to make a lot of sense to me.

However, I have two brief questions to put to Mr. McNamee.

[English]

You said further that the CEO should be hiring staff committed to the mandate of the agency, especially in terms of conservation. I'm surprised that you even ask a question or suggest that the CEO would do otherwise, and I'm just wondering why it should be specifically stated in the bill.

Let me ask my second question. It's a small question too. You referred to the fact that new park agreements are given as a fait accompli. Did I understand you properly when you mentioned that?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I said the proposed boundaries for new national parks—

Mr. Jacques Saada: To my knowledge, the only park I was here for the creation of was le Parc marin du Saguenay—Saint-Laurent. In this case we had ample opportunities to hear out a number of witnesses. Here again, could you explain why you made the statement?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: On the first thing, I'm not trying to impugn the reputation of the current chief executive officer or any future chief executive officers. However, I point out that it's been the experience of both our organizations that when it comes to budget cuts in the national parks, oftentimes the first to go is the interpretation staff, the natural resource management staff.

We were looking at some of the cuts that were going on in the prairie region. They were removing park superintendents and making a committee of three responsible.

Sometimes the chief executive officer doesn't know exactly what's happening in each one of the regions. They're demanding budget cuts, staff cuts. Invariably, in light of the need to collect revenue and to maintain the physical infrastructure, in those other programs that are sometimes considered soft services, such as interpretation and natural resource management, those staff disappear. So we are making these comments based on our observations of what's going on in the parks.

Secondly, you're quite right with respect to the Saguenay Marine Park. There was a great public debate in involvement over the creation of that marine park.

However, from my experience with respect to the proposed Torngat Mountains National Park, our two organizations put an incredible amount of time into looking at the proposed park boundary. The public consultation report didn't even acknowledge that five national conservation organizations had a problem with the proposed boundary and there were some significant problems.

When we go back to people and say we think the boundaries should be bigger, it's a case of, sorry, but those are the terms and conditions that the internal feasibility study group came up with.

It's been the same thing with the proposed Manitoba Lowlands National Park. We were promised options to review four or five different possible boundaries for that proposed national park. It was written into the terms of reference. We had one, and when we've asked where the options are, we are told, sorry, you can't see those, but by the way we let a logging company review them.

I could go on and on with respect to that. However, let me make it very clear that Parks Canada does consult with the local community. It does consult very heavily with aboriginal people, and it won't make a move unless they have those people on board. But there's something missing.

It's the same thing with new national park agreements. They set out the very terms and conditions under which a national park will be managed, the kind of contractual arrangements that will be entered into. When we have requested an open opportunity to review those agreements, we have been told, generally and on most occasions, no, those are between two or three different parties.

Ms. Mary Granskou: I have a couple of comments on your questions, which I think are all very good.

First, on the personnel issues, our organization wants to ensure that the funding security is there so that we're not continually facing within our park system the drive for the almighty dollar over and above very important functions. These include interpretation, providing visitors with a quality experience, and putting the necessary funding into research to understand what's going on on the ground so that the superintendents and managers have the information they need to make the right decisions.

• 1215

Right now there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, which I am sure the Parks Canada people in the room today can attest to, on what is the future for our parks system in terms of financing by government. That 75% we are recommending is one of the most fundamental recommendations we're making here today. That reinforces the mandate. You see the connection there.

On the whole question of the advisory council, one point I didn't make earlier is that Parks Canada is moving to agency status. We support that. We have some problems with this legislation, but in principle we support the move to an agency; it will streamline their operations. Contingent with that, because they will be somewhat more independent, although the accountability lines will be very clear, we feel the public accountability needs to be strengthened. That's a fundamental issue for us in terms of our support for the agency over the long run.

Although I can't speak to counter-arguments, there are a few things that come up in relation to the advisory committee. One thing is whether you would set up a stakeholder committee and you would suddenly have 14, 15, or 16 people involved. We would say no, not a stakeholder committee where everybody has to represent their interests or their organizations; that is not what we're recommending.

To be very clear, we are recommending a small group of at least five people who represent particular skill sets, whether they are in parks management, whether they are the CEO of a bank, or whether they are involved with a conservation organization. This is not really the leading issue from our perspective. It's that their skills and experience will provide the kind of counsel and assistance to Parks Canada they require.

I'll give a model within the U.S. parks system. During one of their most protective periods of adding new national parks and other designations of protected areas to the system in the late fifties and sixties, there was a small, very functional committee that worked very well with seniors and the minister to resolve issues. It's a way to review issues, to get counsel, to cut issues off at the pass, so to speak.

This may be controversial, but one of the recommendations we're making—and, again, this is not directed at anybody within Parks Canada at all; on the contrary—is that we feel it would also be an idea for the advisory committee to have some input on senior appointments. We know how important leadership is.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would encourage you to shorten the answers a little bit, please.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Okay. Sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: You are recommending a 75 per cent public funding plan. You are also recommending a further definition of the organization's mandate and a better definition of the scope of the role of the general director with regard to—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible] Aren't you proposing barriers against any eventual possibility of a budget cut?

Aren't you protecting the system against any possibility of further budget cuts if the need were to arise? In other words, aren't you actually paralyzing the financial system? I only look at the future. That is the only thing that I can change.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Nelson.

Dr. Gordon Nelson: Beginning with the focus on personnel and moving out to the wider issues you raise, there's no doubt in my experience and the experience of other people I know that Parks Canada is seriously understaffed now with respect to its capability to deal with ecologically based, social scientifically based, economically based challenges that face it. It's an enormously complex problem that has become not just a natural and physical problem but also a socio-economic problem because of some of the things we talked about earlier.

Many parks across the country have suffered cuts of the type Mary described, which often fall on the people with particular types of expertise, such as ecological and environmental.

• 1220

The cuts are not immediate and direct. They may take the form of contracts. I know young people who have worked on contracts for 9 or 10 months in a park, with time off so they don't get involved in an ongoing appointment, and these things stretch on for years.

I'm in a position in a university where I have to tell young people, if they want to go into parks work, “Don't do it if you don't like it and you don't seriously want to make a living at it”, because the prospects for getting people into solid jobs over the long term in areas of the kind the parks service needs are not good. They are not good career prospects, either in the sense of a career within the agency as a government department or in ancillary private corporations that might assist in some of the ways we've been talking about before. So there's a very serious problem with respect to getting the personnel who can give the kind of advice that's needed in an increasingly complicated situation.

The situation is having a bad effect on the interests that young people have and the possibilities that young people have in working in this area. If we're going to take this seriously, in the sense that it is more important than hockey perhaps, then I think you have to have a solid base of funding—75%, 70%, some kind of commitment by government—and the earnings beyond that through this agency idea, which I think is a good one and can help with some of these problems I just mentioned.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I probably only have one question, and it has to do with this advisory council. I'm a little confused—this often happens, and it has nothing to do with the witnesses; I could do it all by myself.

It's the whole issue of responsibility. I'm getting mixed signals. On the one hand, one set of recommendations—and I think Ms. Granskou made reference to both these elements. On the one hand you want to make it absolutely certain that the minister is in charge. Therefore you want to clarify the language concerning lines of responsibility with regard to deputy ministers. You just want to be able to say, “It's the minister”.

On the other hand, you want to create an advisory board, or council, that doesn't report to the person you would want to be responsible, which is to say the minister, but to the chief executive officer.

Where my confusion comes is, aren't you setting up institutionalized conflict? That is to say, if the minister is to be in charge, I would assume that an advisory board should advise the minister. But if you set up a situation where it's the CEO being advised by the advisory council, what if the CEO and the advisory council go in one direction and the minister goes in another? I'm not sure how we would be better served by that arrangement, but perhaps I misunderstood the nature of the critique.

Ms. Mary Granskou: I'll try to address that. We want the CEO to be in charge of the day-to-day operations of the agency—full stop, no questions. That's why we don't want the board to be in between the minister and the CEO. You either slot the board in between the minister and the CEO in terms of advising the minister, or you have the board beholden to the CEO. We feel, given the day-to-day functioning of the agency, it would serve the agency better to have the board largely beholden to the CEO.

As I said earlier, that doesn't mean they have no contact with the minister. The minister, in our model, would be in alternating years engaging the public in meaningful consultations on the performance of the agency. The advisory committee would be engaged and involved in that.

We also feel that the board or the advisory committee would have some regular communication, but not without the CEO present. This is a model that needs to be fully explored as well, but I can tell you that we do not want to set up a duality of advice, one coming from the CEO and one coming from this board. What happens then is you politicize the process unnecessarily, and that's not what we're trying to achieve here.

Mr. John Godfrey: Let me just pursue this. Is it the purpose of the advisory board to provide advice on policy? I would understand that to be the domain of the minister. She or he creates policy and the CEO simply administers the policy. In that case the advisory board is not going to advise on policy because that would be inappropriate, as the marching orders come from that politically responsible person known as the minister. But then that would weaken the authority of the advisory board to being a kind of minor operation. I don't mean to diminish it, but it seems to me that if you have it advising the CEO, who is conducting policy established by the minister, it has less clout than if you have it advising the minister in terms of policy.

• 1225

Ms. Mary Granskou: It's a choice. I agree, it's a choice.

Mr. John Godfrey: It has less power the way you propose.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Less power—not a governing body. We are not recommending a governing body.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Would you care, sir, to ask some questions?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): I'm just filling in. I haven't had time to—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Don't feel obliged. I just thought I'd offer you the opportunity.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I haven't had time to prepare.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If I may, I have a comment and two quick questions.

My comment is to Mr. McNamee about his impatience for a red book II. Be somewhat patient. We are in the first year of a five-year mandate. Presumably the government will get to that.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I'm not impatient, Mr. Chairman. It was simply a suggestion.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Well, the comment was that they would finally get around to it.

My first question is to Ms. Granskou. It's dealing with point five in your brief, ministerial responsibility. You say that it might be implied that in the act as it is, the minister's direction would be consistent with the act. Yet you don't feel comfortable with that: you say “our experience”, and I'd be curious to see what that is, is that it would be better to make that explicit. By making it explicit, would you not risk having people interpret that explicitness as being the negative side of an implication—that the minister might, if that weren't in there, give directions that are contrary to the act?

In other words, would you be playing into this spreading notion in North America, including Canada, that people are guilty until proven innocent?

Ms. Mary Granskou: I don't think that's what we're trying to achieve. I think this is a legalistic addition. This is fully considered in light of our experiences in the courts on some of these issues. So it is clarity in the purpose of the act—i.e., bring the preamble in as the purpose of the act—and then following on that, the minister's direction is consistent with the purpose of the act. It clarifies.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So by having to make it explicit, that indeed could imply that the minister, whoever he or she may be, might be giving directives at some point that are not in compliance with the act.

Ms. Mary Granskou: I think we just want it clear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): But you don't see that there could be that implication.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Well, there could be that interpretation, but we see there's more to gain by having it explicitly stipulating the act and let's avoid the court interpretation. You can't avoid it, but—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You can't avoid the courts, unfortunately.

Ms. Mary Granskou: I hope that answers your question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have a question for both groups, a final question. You've proposed some amendments, and judging by comments and questions some of these are of interest to some of the members of the committee. There was a statement—explicit in the case of Mr. McNamee, implied in your case—that you support the concept but not the bill. Should none of the amendments that you proposed be carried, would you be opposed to this bill as it stands? Would you prefer that the bill not proceed, that the agency not be created, as opposed to an agency created as proposed?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Let me answer on behalf of the Canadian Nature Federation.

I think I detected two things in there. Let me clarify. First of all, yes, we are fully supportive of a separate Parks Canada agency. If this bill goes forward as is, let me give the committee the assurance of the Canadian Nature Federation that we would work with this Parks Canada agency to achieve goals we both agree on. However, we would state publicly that we do not and did not support Bill C-29. So that is our position.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Our committee has not fully decided on that issue. I think we're waiting to see what comes out of the deliberations here. So I'm not prepared to answer that at this point. I'd say we'd have tremendous difficulty supporting it as is.

• 1230

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Seeing no further questions, we'll adjourn. We thank the witnesses very much for your presentations.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Thank you.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. There seemed to be a lot of interest in the recommendations our organizations suggested. I wonder if it would be possible to append both our briefs to the minutes of this proceeding. I'm sure we can both make them available in digital format too.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We don't usually append, but they're available. If anybody wants them, they're there for the public record, because you've tabled them here and they've been referred to. They're available through the secretariats of the House of Commons committees. As a rule, we don't append, because we'd be producing minutes that would be rather voluminous. It wouldn't be very environmentally friendly, on top of that.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: As I do not regularly attend the sessions of this committee, I would like to make sure that you routinely translate the briefs and that you will be sending us the French versions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes. Thanks again, Mr. McNamee.

[English]

Ms Granskou and Mr. Nelson, thank you very much for your presentation. We'll see where this takes us.

The meeting is adjourned.