HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 17, 2000

• 1907

[English]

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

[Translation]

that is meeting today to continue consideration of Bill C-27,

[English]

an act respecting the national parks of Canada.

Tonight we are fortunate to have a round table of four different parties.

Mr. William Tilleman, who is appearing as an individual, has advised us that he's going to be slightly late. He'll be with us in a few minutes.

We are pleased to welcome, from the Town of Banff, the mayor, Mr. Dennis Shuler; from the Jasper Park Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Roy Everest, vice-president; and from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Mr. Jerry DeMarco, staff lawyer.

Because we are using a round-table format around a square table, I would suggest that the witnesses give us their presentations one after the other. There'll be wrap-up questions by the members after we've heard all of you.

Mr. Shuler, would you like to start?

Mr. Dennis Shuler (Mayor of Banff): Thank you.

I appreciate you inviting me to appear. I certainly have developed a new appreciation for the hours that you put in. It seems that when I got up yesterday morning for my breakfast I saw most of you on television, and two days later I'm here talking to you and you're still at it.

I've presented a written submission. I don't propose to add to that, but I'll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

I'm just going to briefly go over the history of Banff and outline some of its interesting points, problems, and issues.

Generally the Town of Banff is quite pleased with the proposed legislation. In the written comments that I've made, I've suggested some fine-tuning.

Banff really became a community in 1887. At that time, there were already 180 leased lots, six hotels, a school, and a post office. For a hundred years it was administered directly out of Ottawa. In 1990 the Province of Alberta and the federal government entered into an incorporation agreement, which set up the town as we know it now. I am the third mayor. Probably we're the only community in Canada where every mayor is still alive.

• 1910

Banff is about 4.87 square kilometres, which translates to 7/100 of 1% of the area of Banff National Park and about 2/100 of 1% of the four parks that form the world heritage site. Unfortunately, it is also on some of the prime montane land.

Eighty-one percent of the visitors that come to Banff National Park visit the actual townsite. Eighty-two percent of those are Canadians. So contrary to what a lot of people may think, Banff, although it can be considered an international resort, is still very much used by Canadians.

Local government works in Banff. As a community, we provide efficient, responsive, and cheaper government than Ottawa could provide operating directly out of Ottawa. I'm sure that as politicians you all have weekend calls and evening calls. As Mayor of Banff, I of course get those calls all the time as well, and that's certainly quicker than having to make a call to Ottawa.

Parks Canada does not have the expertise or the interest in running a community government. Their primary expertise, which is world class, is in running national parks. Local government has been in Banff for eleven years but across the country for several hundred, and a lot of expertise and traditions have been built up.

Banff, to a certain extent, has created the atmosphere for why you're here today. In the middle to late 1990s, Banff decided to come up with a community plan, which provoked national and international interest. It led to the limits that we have on commercial growth now and to what you're proposing to impose in all of the national parks.

We have very strict requirements on signage. The McDonald's sign is very small. There's no fluorescent lighting. We have strict architectural guidelines. We're developing a community energy baseline so that we can start monitoring what energy the community actually uses and what pollutants we put into the atmosphere, and then we will be developing some standards for how to deal with them.

As a town, we have recently entered into a solid waste management agreement with municipal governments just outside of the park, a task that would probably be extremely difficult for a federal government or a federal government agency to accomplish. Local governments working one-on-one were able to successfully shut down the existing solid waste site that was in the park and move it some 50 kilometres away.

We've established heritage walking tours and heritage plaques. We have instituted water meters as conservation. Our fire and ambulance training is top-notch; we have new equipment and we service the entire national park. We've upgraded our lighting, both in terms of energy efficiency and in terms of reducing pollution. We also have public transit.

To a certain extent, what I've described to you is a community just like where you come from, a community of people who live there. It's not an oil rig, where people come and go and have no emotional attachment to it.

But Banff does have some situations, problems, and issues that are different from those anywhere else. We pay the federal government $550,000 for land rental. I'm not aware of any other community that rents. Two-thirds of our local tax bill ends up going to the provincial government for education. We have a housing shortage that has existed for well over 100 years, and under the proposed legislation the town area will be reduced by some 15%, with most of that land being taken away from housing areas.

The sewage treatment plant that we're just in the process of redeveloping is costing between $11 million and $15 million. We're upgrading to provincial standards, and provincial grants are available for part of that. The federal government would like us to increase to new federal standards. That's fine, but there's no offer of the money.

We've been sued twice by the people Parks Canada is proposing to take land away from, and the federal government's support has been there in all aspects except the financial ones.

• 1915

The Bow Valley study that came out some years ago made some valuable and interesting suggestions, but it came out with suggestions that really don't fly all that well in Banff. One of the suggestions is that the high school is not a basic and essential need for the town of Banff. One proposal was to put a fence around the town. The definition of a basic and essential service has been debated many times. I suggest to you that if in the communities you come from, and ably represent, somebody proposed shutting down your high school and moving it, or putting a fence around it, it would cause some consternation in the community.

What I'm basically saying is that Banff is an extremely valuable resource, and a lot of government people, and other people, view it as a golden goose. But remember, it is a golden goose, but there are only so many feathers on the goose.

We like local government, and we think we are in the forefront of what we're doing with what you're going to put into place and enforce in the rest of the country.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mayor Shuler.

Mr. Everest.

Mr. Roy C. Everest (Vice-President, Jasper Park Chamber of Commerce): Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen,

[Translation]

ladies and gentlemen.

I am sorry, but my French is not very good. Furthermore, I speak French with a Franco-Albertan accent. That is why I will speak in English; I do not want you to plug your ears.

[English]

Jasper Tourism and Commerce, my organization, represents approximately 200 businesses in and surrounding the town of Jasper and Jasper National Park. Tomorrow you'll be hearing from members of the Jasper town committee who are elected to advise Parks Canada on municipal matters in Jasper. As Jasper currently lacks a formal and empowered municipal government, Jasper Tourism and Commerce fulfils the tourism, economic development, and marketing functions within Jasper.

It is the position of our organization that Bill C-27 is seriously flawed in three main areas. Firstly, Bill C-27, as proposed, denies basic democratic rights to the 5,000 residents of Jasper. Clauses 9 and 35 of the bill, when taken together, mean that there will never be any sort of effective and responsible municipal government in the town of Jasper. Bill C-27 removes input and participation in the municipal decision-making process from the town of Jasper and from those who will be most directly affected by those decisions.

In reality, municipal decision-making is being moved directly to Ottawa. Although some might feel that senior Ottawa bureaucrats have some inherent sense as to where a stop sign should be placed within the town of Jasper, I'm sure that most would agree that members of a local community should be able to have a say in matters of a purely local or municipal nature.

Prior versions of the National Parks Act have recognized the ability of the residents of Jasper to become a municipality at some point in the future. Jasper has been negotiating with Parks Canada for at least 30 years regarding some form of empowered local government. Negotiations are still proceeding, despite the introduction of Bill C-27, which strips these democratic rights away.

I was born and raised in Jasper. As a local, I have to say that as town managers Parks Canada does not do a good job. As Mr. Shuler has said, Parks Canada are in the business of running national parks, not national parks communities. Basic municipal decisions are just not made. If I had to describe in a single word how Parks Canada operates the town of Jasper, that word would be “paralysis”. There's been no action to solve major local problems for at least the past decade. As a result, our streets, sewer system, and infrastructure are on the point of breaking down.

A parking authority, which would help to solve seasonal parking problems, has been in the Parks Canada planning stages for over twenty years. Parks Canada has shown it cannot run the town of Jasper; yet this bill will enshrine this unworkable system of management as a legislative ideal for Jasper. At an age when the equality of all Canadian citizens is enshrined by law, this legislation seemingly is attempting to create a small group of second-class Canadian citizens. This legislation reflects an uncaring indifference toward municipal government, a form of government that most Canadians take for granted.

Parks Canada continues to state their various rhetoric of partnership, stakeholders, and stewardship. This legislation not only completely obviates these possibilities, but seems almost deliberately designed to provoke conflict between the people of Jasper and the federal government. By denying the residents of Jasper these basic democratic rights, the federal government is violating the spirit of the democratic rights set forth in section 3 of the charter and is violating the letter of the equality rights set forth in section 15 of the charter.

• 1920

Thankfully, there's an easy solution to all of this. If you were to keep the existing section 8.2 of the act, which permits the negotiation of a form of local government in the future, then this simple change will preserve the democratic options currently addressed in the act. If you were being told that section 8.2 must be removed from the act, then you owe a duty to the people of Jasper to ask why this section is being removed.

Our second concern is that Bill C-27 seems to be setting up a situation where the federal government can unilaterally expropriate privately held leaseholds within national parks without compensation. In all prior versions of the National Parks Act, the Governor in Council has never been given a power to unilaterally terminate leases. In addition, the protections provided by the Expropriation Act have always been referred to. Bill C-27, for the first time, introduces the concept of leasehold termination, while simultaneously removing all reference to the Expropriation Act.

By way of background, leaseholds within Jasper National Park are a unique or sui generis form of landholding, in that although land is held by a lease, there is no power of termination so long as the leasehold terms are being obeyed. Further, leaseholds are always renewed once the term expires. Bill C-27 appears to be attempting to change this established landholding method by vesting the crown with more powers than it has historically enjoyed. However, there's been no explanation as to why the private property of individuals is being compromised.

Parks Canada has stated on numerous occasions that they want to encourage a sense of stewardship and stakeholder interest in the management of the parks. However, through this legislation they are seriously impeding the usual rights of ownership associated with land since the time of Magna Carta. As a result, this legislation will accomplish exactly the opposite of what Parks Canada desires. In addition, this legislation raises the spectre of the expropriation of property rights without the protections normally afforded Canadians, including the right to be heard and the right to receive fair compensation.

The sanctity of the home and the security of home ownership is a central facet of Canadian culture and law. Residents of Jasper understand and accept the concept of leasehold ownership, as opposed to freehold ownership, in national parks, mainly because residents know that parks policy is always to renew leases. As a result, leaseholders have made a significant investment in improving their properties. At worst, Bill C-27 will legislatively allow for the property rights of 5,000 Canadian citizens to be legally impacted. At best, this legislation will once again help the people of Jasper to feel like second-class citizens.

Again, our solution is to keep the existing wording of the act. We would suggest that all reference to termination of leases be removed and that the existing wording be retained. As the crown has never enjoyed historical rights of leasehold termination, these rights should not now be introduced. In addition, the existing subsections 6(4) and 6(5) of the act should be retained, these subsections dealing with expropriation and the protections of the Expropriation Act. In the alternative, it must be made clear that the protections of the Expropriation Act, or similar protections, apply in respect of any termination or other acquisition of an interest in land in the parks, and termination of a lease can only proceed when it is shown to be in the national interest. This will satisfactorily address property rights that all other Canadians take for granted.

Again, you have a duty to ask why these changes are being proposed. And if no compelling reason can be shown, you must maintain the protections currently contained within the National Parks Act.

Our third concern is that Bill C-27 legislatively enshrines bad community planning principles. For the first time ever, an arbitrary commercial square footage cap has been proposed. This proposed system is as unnecessary as it is impractical and unworkable. Historically, land use in Jasper has been regulated, firstly by zoning, and secondly through building regulations to restrict the total useable amount of land. Jasper has very few commercial lots that can be developed. I think the total is about five. As there is almost no commercial land in Jasper that has not been developed, this system has worked well to control commercial space and development.

The proposed system of commercial square footage caps in the short term will only serve to expand an already swollen bureaucracy, as the proposed allocation system is so confusing that it will create only uncertainty and acrimony. Instead of preventing or slowing development, which is the intent of this legislation, it will promote development as the few remaining lessees who own undeveloped commercial lots will rush to develop their property before the commercial cap is reached. This proposed system takes away all flexibility, as bylaw changes must now be passed by federal act.

Prudent land use planning should not be written in stone. However, a more chilling prospect from a local perspective is that Parks Canada could use this system as a way to effect expropriation without involving the taking of any land. Parks Canada regulates businesses not only through commercial zoning of property, but also through their power to issue business licences.

• 1925

Bill C-27 states that community plans must set a square footage cap. It also states that this can be altered without consultation with property owners by the Governor in Council. There is a possibility that Parks Canada could refuse to grant a business licence to an existing business because a square footage cap has been altered or exceeded. If that's the case, that business will be forced to close. The business owner, or the owner of the lease, will go bankrupt as a result, triggering a reversion clause in the lease to the crown. This effectively results in the elimination of that lessee and the expropriation of that land.

Businesses within national parks have always provided a valuable public service and have a role to play in meeting the parks' mandate. This is especially true in the western mountain parks, which act as a central visitor service centre for the entire park. Businesses cannot function in an environment of uncertainty, which arises when the spectre of unilateral lease and/or business licence cancellation is raised.

Again, our solution is a simple one. In order to keep the spirit of this legislation, while preventing expropriation, as I set forth, through a refusal to renew business licences, we suggest that subclause 33(5) be changed to read that “no new lease or licence of occupation be granted and no new permit, licence or other authorization may be issued”.

In addition, we are also very concerned with the phrase contained within clause 33, “no net negative environmental impact”. This phrase has already been defined in various ways by various special interest groups. To the best of my knowledge, this phrase has no legal or scientific definition. Therefore, it can be used by any group to pursue any ends and will only create more conflict and strife in land planning than has previously been the case. As there is no clear definition of what this phrase means, we would suggest that subparagraph 33(2)(d)(i) be stricken in its entirety, as subparagraph 33(2)(d)(ii) of the bill is general enough to encompass the sentiment that is expressed in this section and is expressed in plain language. If this phrase must be included, then we would suggest that this term either be defined or, ideally, a definition should be contained within the definition section of the act.

Finally, we feel that visitor use within communities should also be recognized. After all, section 4 of the dedication clause of the National Parks Act states that the national parks are dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education, and enjoyment. We would suggest that an additional paragraph be added as paragraph 33(2)(e) along the lines of:

A community plan will consider the benefit, education and enjoyment derived by visitors to a park and, to the extent possible, minimize the impact of management actions to maintain ecological integrity upon visitor use.

After all, the town of Jasper is only 130 hectares in a national park that is 10.8 million hectares in size. Certainly there must be enough room to allow Canadians to continue to use and enjoy their parks while maintaining ecological integrity.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for your time tonight.

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

Mr. Tilleman has not arrived as yet, so Mr. DeMarco, would you proceed, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Jerry DeMarco (Staff Lawyer, Sierra Legal Defence Fund): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Like Mr. Everest, I am going to do my presentation in English. I am not fluent enough in French to make a detailed presentation like this in that language.

[English]

Good evening. I have provided a copy of a draft brief from last week to the clerk. I understand that he has made copies available to the members in both French and English. I will not read the brief in its entirety, but simply note a few of the key highlights.

I will also be referring to a new subclause 8(2) that we will propose in the course of my comments, and I have provided that to the clerk, as well.

I'm here on behalf of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, which is a non-profit, charitable organization that specializes in environmental law. Sierra Legal Defence Fund helps protect the environment by providing legal advice and representation to concerned citizens and groups across Canada. We have been involved in a number of key legal actions involving the national parks, ranging from logging in Wood Buffalo, as one of our earliest cases, to recent cases involving a large-scale mine development near Jasper National Park, the Cheviot Mine.

• 1930

Most recently, Sierra Legal Defence Fund was retained as legal adviser to the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks. I understand that chairman Jacques Gérin presented to the panel last week.

As noted in my brief, Sierra Legal Defence Fund's comments are confined at this stage to several key items. To summarize, those are ecological integrity, management plans and indicators, wilderness areas, regional integration, and species at risk. I will confine my comments tonight to those key areas, although there are other important aspects of the bill that will also be touched upon in a further written brief at a later date.

Because the ecological integrity panel has already presented, I need not go into too much detail regarding the threats to national parks. Suffice it to say that we simply refer the committee to the important work done by the blue ribbon panel on ecological integrity, and we support its findings that the parks indeed are under threat and that significant changes need to be made from all levels—policy, legislation, decision-making, operations, etc.

I'll confine my comments tonight to the legislative aspects, given that this is a committee hearing regarding the bill.

With regard to the first key point, ecological integrity, in our view the current subsection 8(2) is deficient for two key reasons. One is that despite an oral commitment by the minister to make ecological integrity the overriding priority for the parks, they retained in the drafting of this bill the reference to the fact that ecological integrity consideration is limited to only two aspects—that is, visitor use and zoning. So we present language that makes it clear, as I believe the minister intended, that ecological integrity will be the overriding principle for all aspects of the management of the parks, not simply those two enumerated items, which are actually holdovers from the old National Parks Act.

A second key problem with subsection 8(2), the ecological integrity section, is that it provides no specific detail as to what protecting ecological integrity would actually mean on the ground in terms of what would be permitted and what would not be permitted.

As you know, to remedy those problems the ecological integrity panel has provided a proposed clause, which is found in its first draft form in appendix C of their recent report and was reiterated in a slightly newer version by Monsieur Gérin last week.

Tonight, in consultation with two other groups, the Canadian Nature Federation and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, I have attempted to bring together the various slightly different proposed wordings for subsection 8(2) into a new subclause 8(2). I've provided this in writing to the clerk, and I will simply state it now for the record, as it has not yet been translated. This new proposed subclause 8(2) is endorsed not only by my organization, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, but also by CPAWS and CNF, and this is being submitted jointly on the three groups' behalf. We propose the following subclause 8(2):

Maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity, including the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister in all actions and decision-making relating to the administration, management, and control of parks, including public lands in parks.

With that new proposal we've attempted to integrate the various slightly different iterations of that section that have come from the presentations before me, namely, the panel on ecological integrity, the Canadian Nature Federation, and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. I understand that Mr. Radford will provide a translated copy of that subclause to the committee at a later date.

• 1935

In our view, the ecological integrity part, along with clause 4 of the bill, is in many ways the cornerstone of the bill. It provides the guidance as to the main principle behind managing the national parks. We feel that the improvements along the line suggested tonight and in the ecological integrity panel report are necessary in order to enshrine the principle of protecting and restoring ecological integrity properly within the bill.

Moving on from clause 8, I go now to the management plan part. As you will see in my brief, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, as legal advisers to the panel, put forward a detailed proposal for management plans. For your reference, that can be found in appendix C, pages 3 to 4, of the panel report. We provided that detailed proposal as the ideal scenario for a new management plan clause for the bill.

In the event that the longer version is not acceptable at this point in terms of changes to the bill, I have presented in my brief a shorter version that touches on the highlights of the panel's recommendations and includes wording around key points made in the panel's report, such as indicators, performance objectives, and ecological integrity. Those provisions can be found in part two of my brief.

A third key area is the wilderness areas provision. As you may have heard from previous witnesses, no wilderness areas have been set aside under the existing act, even though that power has been there for quite some time. We therefore support the panel's proposal that there be an obligation to set aside wilderness areas and not simply just a power to set aside these areas.

In addition to the clauses proposed by the panel in its report, we present tonight an additional clause to deal with new parks and parks that don't have management plans, as these two issues were not dealt with in the panel's report, appendix C. I refer the committee to part three of my brief, on wilderness areas, for the wording we propose in order to ensure that these wilderness areas are set aside in existing parks and new parks.

Another key area of amendment that we are proposing tonight, which is another one that the ecological integrity panel proposed in their appendix C, is what we call regional integration. One of the key findings of the panel was that the landscapes around the national parks have an important influence, and at times a negative influence, on the ecological integrity of the parks themselves. We therefore propose a new subclause 8(3) or 8(4), depending on the numbering, that will provide the power for park managers to actually participate in decision-making processes outside of Parks Canada that have an impact on the parks themselves.

By way of example, this would include regional land-use plans on provincial and private land around the park. They would have the authority to participate in those plans and to help put forward park principles and park values in those processes. It would include environmental assessment and participation in such other decision-making processes that are reasonably certain to affect national parks.

In our brief, as well as in the appendix to the ecological integrity report, we also present a recommendation for adding new powers to the minister responsible for national parks to require environmental assessments on projects that are reasonably certain to have impacts on national parks. There is already a power for the environment minister to do so. This would simply allow for the parks minister to have a similar power.

Finally, given the proposals of this government to also enact a new species-at-risk piece of legislation, we feel it is important that Parks Canada take leadership on that issue and include in the bill a specific provision requiring the protection and restoration of species at risk and their habitats in parks, as this is one of the key areas that can be used to protect endangered and threatened species.

• 1940

That is a summary of my brief that has been provided to the committee. I'll finish my comments at this point and allow more time for questions from the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.

We'll open the floor to questions. Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all our witnesses for making the long trip to Ottawa to appear before us.

I have two questions, one for His Worship Mayor Shuler and the other for Mr. DeMarco.

In looking at your brief, Your Worship, I'm very surprised to read that Banff residents feel they are second-class Canadians. I would think anyone living in Banff would consider themselves first-class Canadians and very fortunate to live in such a beautiful environment.

I know the issue of leases is a sore point through most of the parks where there are residences, whether they be seasonal or non-seasonal. Realizing it is accepted that leases are the way to go, what needs to be done so those in your community feel they're not being treated like second-class citizens in this country?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

We feel we're first-class citizens in living in the community we do, but what we own is second-class. That is, the majority of people have fixed-term leases, with no written guarantee of renewal. When you talk to a bank, the bank just doesn't understand that.

In the most recent scenario, yesterday I was talking to a person down the hall from where my office is. He was talking about developing and bringing in another mortgage lender to the community through his office. He was having little success in persuading them to have any interest in lending in Banff because they said “Oh, that's leased. We're not interested in putting a mortgage on a lease.”

So when you buy a house, you have a restricted number of lenders to borrow from. If you want to buy a house with seven years left on a lease, talk to a bank and try to get a 25-year mortgage on it. What interest do you have in painting your fence or shovelling your sidewalk if the lease, theoretically, is not going to be renewed?

The very civil suggestions I have are that the leases be renewed, or if the minister chooses not to renew them, that the leaseholders be compensated for full fair-market value, and not just for the improvements, as currently exists.

There are perpetually renewable leases in Banff that were issued until 1946, so that creates a two-class system within the town of Banff. Some people know they are safe forever and there's nothing Parks Canada can do about it, but their next-door neighbour may theoretically be gone tomorrow.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Mark, would you mind me interrupting you and the witnesses? Mr. Tilleman has arrived, and I wonder if we can just allow him some time to present to us. Then we'll resume the questions.

Mr. Tilleman.

Mr. William A. Tilleman (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I'm sorry I'm late.

I'm a lawyer who has represented government, industry, and private citizens, so tonight I'm speaking here primarily for myself. I probably find myself somewhat in the middle of the comments you'll be hearing on either end from the environment groups, industry, and maybe government.

Since I'm a lawyer, let me refer to a quote of Thomas Jefferson, who once said “It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and to talk by the hour.” Tonight I want you to know that I'm only going to question one thing, I will yield almost everything, and I will only talk for ten minutes.

My one issue tonight is actually captured by the metaphor of wilderness itself. Wilderness can be a metaphor to explain the confusion in the national parks from, on the one hand, signing contracts for visitor use through a lease agreement or a licence actually stating that visitor use shall occur, and on the other hand, restricting that use, as it must, through the national parks, but even to the point of cancelling or terminating those leases under regulatory law.

• 1945

I will focus then primarily on that tension between the lease mechanism to promote visitor use and the national parks' regulation of that use.

There are two areas of law that you study at different times in law school. Contract law is studied usually in the first year of law school. A contract is entered between two people, and failure to honour the terms of that has different results, often a claim for damages or for some specific performance. So that's one area of law.

On the other hand, the National Parks Act and environmental laws are clearly a different realm of law. They are laws that necessarily have to apply to everybody, and breach of that might be enforcement-related, even perhaps jail.

So what you have regarding leases in national parks are these contracts that are often entered into for 40 years. Some of the leases for the major ski or golf industries are still open for another 20 years, or maybe 30 years. These leases require visitor use. It states in many of the leases that it's a condition of the lease that there shall be a first-class resort, or it's a condition that people come up and do whatever they do.

I don't ski, and I've never golfed in the parks, but there's no question that tourism has been good for parks, and no doubt, through the development of the parks in the last one hundred years, vice versa as well.

Business leases often have preferential renewal rights. These business leases determined—a long time ago—which uses were proper and which uses were then allowed. And I don't know how that decision was made. I don't know who makes it, except that I expect you would have a real estate arm, on the one hand, dealing with whatever they do, and on the other hand, one would hope that the parks people have some authority over those leases.

There often are compensation provisions in leases as well, so if the crown basically cancels a lease in the current situation, under the contract law side of things, there is a fair market value, either as agreed upon by the parties, or by some special arbitration or some other market basis.

So the crown does—and should and must—enjoy wide discretion in the parks, and that's the regulatory law side of things. On the contract side of things, you have to balance the discretion, or even perhaps limit that discretion by basic rights under a contract. Now, what are those rights?

In some of these major leases, the rights are to have and to hold the lands for a specific period. Some leases grant stronger rights. Some leases state that the lessee shall and may peacefully and quietly enjoy the land during the said term without interruption from or by Her Majesty. The latter one is as close to the full bundle of land rights you could possibly get, except title.

Of course leases also allow the crown to enter and use the lands for a park or any other public purpose. These crown leases, however, often refer to that use of land as “expropriation”, and currently you have some leases that state that the crown will pay the lessee fair compensation for the loss of the relative land.

So what about the old parks act and the new parks act? How do you terminate leases under both pieces of law?

Under the old act, in paragraph 7(h) there is an empowerment to the Governor in Council to issue regulations governing the granting, amending, or surrendering of leases, but not expressly regarding lease termination—and I'm not speaking of those cases where the lessee breaches the law and the lease itself, because that is provided for.

Under the new act, in subclause 15(2) of Bill C-27, there is a clause that says the minister may terminate a lease of public lands in a park. That does not exist in the current act.

I believe that by appearing in clause 15, this termination authority applies only to leases authorized under that section. I think that's what you meant, because subclause 15(1) specifically authorizes leases for a variety of infrastructure-related uses. On the other hand, subclause 15(2) refers generally to leases, and that needs to be clarified.

• 1950

As I'll state in a couple of minutes, I think you should add to the word “terminate” in clause 15—that it should terminate those leases or licences granted under this section. Then it would be clear and it would be fair.

I also point your attention to subclause 16(1), which does allow the Governor in Council power to issue regulations governing “issuance, amendment and termination”. So now you have two provisions. You have one in subclause 15(2) and you have one in clause 16. The one in clause 16 is through a regulation power.

The power to terminate does not currently exist. In light of the current leases and the contractual invested rights that exist within those leases, particularly since they actually promote visitor use.... The current lease and licence of occupation regulations are probably quite archaic, but they do say that to amend a lease in existence, you would need the consent of both parties. There is a self-executing cancellation and compensation provision in these current leases. I think you should look carefully at terminating leases that are entered into prior to Parliament's enactment of this bill.

As I will tell you in a minute, I believe you should make Bill C-27's lease termination clauses prospective only. That's normally the presumption, but I think you need to be clear here. You need to be very clear and tell us what you mean. You can still terminate after the fact, but if you do that, I'm concerned that you're going to run into damage actions.

In conclusion, let me say this. I recommend that you make Bill C-27's lease or licence termination prospective only. I think you can just use the word “new” when referring to a licence. You have good drafters. Susan Katz is a smart lawyer who knows how to do these things.

A related point is that within subclause 15(2), I recommend that you make that apply to clause 15 leases or licences only.

Also, I think you should amend paragraph 16(1)(g), which is the power by regulation to terminate a lease. You should amend it to make sure it identifies that it has a prospective application—that is, to a new lease—but especially you should clarify the responsibilities and rights of lessees and licensees in the parks. There are issues of renewal, assignment, operations and so on and so forth. What is the experience of these people? Have you looked at the financial backing of these people?

I think the old regulations for leases and licences are out of date. You should specifically add some words to the Governor in Council's power to make regulations, in order to be very clear about what you expect out of lessees and licensees in the park, particularly with the mandate of ecological protection being a priority.

My second main point is that I think you should congratulate the drafters of Bill C-27. This is a tough thing to do. You have expanded ecological integrity's grasp by changing the old section that applied it to the visitor use and the management plan. You've deleted that and you've said it applies to visitor use, period. Good for you. That's what the Gérin report has stated, and that's what you're hearing. These are public lands and you're Parliament and I think you have to go with it.

The drafters also left the dedication clause balanced. Now that's tough, but as I'm going to tell you now, we're way past the time to turn the parks back into the Garden of Eden. We passed that time a long time ago. Clause 4 obviously has a contradictory mandate. It's a mandate of use on the one hand and it's a mandate of preservation on the other hand, and I think you're wise to leave it as it is.

I will skip the reasons that I agree that it should be left as it is. Let me just say, though, that the policies have been subordinated to each other from time to time. Now's the time when use is going to be subordinated to preservation. Maybe ten years from now it will change, and that just has to happen, but right now we know where it stands.

Be very careful with drafting new leases or licences allowing uses. I don't know how this happens. I don't know who does it, except that it's the realty division. I'm sure they're very good people, but this is a major use in the park and you should be very careful in allowing those uses. In other words, you shouldn't have a right hand and a left hand trying to do things without knowing what's going on.

• 1955

Finally, I would say that operationally, I think you can manage the section 4 problems of balancing this contradictory mandate, and I think you can do it through stricter regulations.

A year or two ago, I had argued before the OCA panel that I believed you could help manage the parks in a better way and promote ecological integrity by identifying specific user groups that should be subjected to regulations that identify that group. I used the ski area regulations as an example. I believe Minister Copps approved of that. I know Secretary of State Mitchell approved of it. I know they stated that the regulations would be instituted. I believe that's a way you can deal with such things as the background of a company. I believe that's the way you can deal with such things as enforcement where necessary. I believe those regulations should be added more specifically to clause 16. They have been approved by the ministers.

I am done speaking. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Tilleman. You've certainly brought a new outlook to what we've heard tonight. It's going to be very useful to the drafters as they study your brief.

Mr. Mark, we'll start again.

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

Mr. Tilleman, I thank you for your comments as well. You've hit the nail on the head because the issue is about leases, which create all the problems we have today, and also about a sense of balance in terms of people use and also protecting the environment.

On that very point, I would like to ask Mr. DeMarco a question. Since you are a professional planner and you do have the environmental solutions to sustain the ecology, can you paint us a picture of what Banff would be like in your eyes 20 years down the road?

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: It's hard for me to comment on Banff specifically, having only visited it a couple of times. I am from Ontario and very familiar with the parks in Ontario, such as Point Pelee, where I grew up.

I can't give you a specific picture of Banff because I haven't even been there in several years, but I do know that the picture that exists now is troubling. I don't know why we have to have plastic surgeons, McDonald's, and Gucci in national parks—not plastic surgeons visiting it, but plastic surgeon offices. I don't think those are basic and essential. I see a future for Banff and other parks that brings the balance between preservation and use, as mentioned by Mr. Tilleman, back a bit more towards the environment.

I don't say that Banff's town centre will be eliminated or disappear, although that's happened with some of the townsites in the U.S. national parks. I know the giant forest village in Sequoia National Park was there when I was there ten years ago, and it was gone when I was there a few months ago. They have certainly have had to take some very strong actions in the U.S. parks due to ill-advised decisions in the past in developing sensitive areas.

I would see that Banff, recognizing that mistakes have been made in the past, has to learn from that and cap development and recognize that at a certain point, a line must be drawn. These are national parks and we can't have unending growth. There has to be a limit at some point. Given the particular emphasis on ecological integrity at the moment, those limits can be drawn with those principles in mind. Given what we have there now, what steps are necessary to ensure that the integrity in ecological terms is protected and restored while also recognizing that there is a history here, a cultural history, not just a natural history, that has to be respected as well?

Mr. Inky Mark: Does that necessitate a reduction in population and the service business in order to sustain or maintain the ecological integrity of the park?

• 2000

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: In my view, it would probably need a limit. Whether that limit is at the present level or below or above, I don't know. I don't have familiarity with that particular region of the country to say that the number is x, but I do believe there is a number or a line or a boundary on a map that needs to be there. I don't pretend to have the specific knowledge to say where that line will be, but I do believe there does have to be a limit to growth.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Everest, I do not have an Albertan accent but I assume that you will be able to understand me nevertheless.

I am a happy man tonight, Mr. Chairman, because we are dealing specifically with two of my basic concerns: first, maintaining the ecological integrity of parks and, second, the equally important issue of respecting the communities that live in parks or along their boundaries.

My first question is for you, Mr. DeMarco. A few minutes ago, Mr. Tilleman referred to clause 4 of the bill. He said that the wording should not be amended, but at the same time, there is a principle that everything has a primary purpose and a secondary purpose. In my view, clause 4 of the bill states that the primary purpose is to make our national parks available for the enjoyment of the Canadian people. I was under the impression that, on the contrary, the primary purpose of this bill was to ensure protection of the environment, ecological integrity, wildlife, plants and so on.

The French version of subclause 8(2) of the bill states that, with regard to zoning and use, the minister should above all strive to maintain ecological integrity. Striving to do something is sometimes very different from being required to do something. Frequently, it means barely trying.

Do you think that these two clauses should be strengthened, so as to put the primary purpose, that of maintaining ecological integrity, before all the others? What do you think?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. DeMarco, the question was addressed to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: I will answer you in English.

[English]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That's all right.

[Translation]

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: I occasionally have an opportunity to speak French, but it does not happen often. Consequently, I do not speak fluently enough to answer such a detailed question.

[English]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Go ahead.

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: In terms of those two key clauses, as you will recall from my presentation, I agree that clause 4 and clause 8 are what I would call the guiding principles for many of the other clauses in the act.

With respect to clause 4, it has been characterized as a dual mandate. On the one hand, you're supposed to be dedicating it to the benefit, education, and enjoyment of the people of Canada, and on the other hand maintaining it unimpaired.

In my view, if the parks are actually managed properly, maintaining them unimpaired is actually for the benefit, education, and enjoyment of the people. In other words, that protection of the parks so that they are unimpaired for future generations will actually permit the accomplishment of the first goal, which is to enjoy them and to benefit from them.

In other words, the way I read that clause, the benefit and enjoyment and education that is being spoken about there is not the same sort of permission to develop and to undertake urban or industrial development in a park in that sense of enjoyment and education and benefit, but actually to keep these parks in a manner that's maintained.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I think you're satisfied with the wording of clause 4.

• 2005

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: Yes.

As regards clause 8, I agree with you completely that the ideal scenario is actually to make it specific as to how ecological integrity should be maintained—in other words, have the guiding principle as well as a specific subclause that puts meat on the bones, which says what that means in terms of day-to-day decision-making.

I'll simply refer you to the panel's report. In that report, we had suggested that there be an overall principle of maintaining and restoring ecological integrity, and it went on for a couple of lines, and then it actually gave a detailed section. If the matter in question would impair the ecological integrity of the park, diminish to a certain degree species in the park, or diminish species at risk in the park, then those types of actions would be prohibited. So the minister would actually be faced with a sharp line that says thou shall not do X, Y, and Z if they are going to impair the ecological integrity.

I will reiterate tonight, that is my preference—that there actually be not only a guiding principle clause, subclause 8(2), as suggested, to be revised in my presentation tonight, but actually a subclause that deals with the details of what that would mean.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to ask Mayor Shuler a question.

Your Worship, the bill before us gives the minister far- reaching powers. These powers cover all spheres of activity, both commercial and municipal activities. In short, all park communities are, for all practical purposes, subject to the absolute authority of the minister, with almost no recourse.

Now, you told us that, although the National Parks of Canada did a world-class job in terms of ecological management and park maintenance, they were nevertheless far from being specialists in municipal affairs.

It seems to me—and this is where I need your input—that it is not acceptable for the minister to have what amounts to absolute authority. At the same time, the minister obviously cannot be totally subject to a local administration.

In your view, Mr. Shuler, what is the proper balance?

[English]

Mr. Dennis Shuler: First of all, I apologize for my lack of knowledge of French. Banff is going to host the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 2001. I indicated six months ago that I expected to be able to speak French by May 2001, so I have twelve months left to go.

The Chair: Good for you.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: The minister has always had an awful lot of power in Banff National Park and in all the national parks. She surrendered some of those powers in 1990 to the Town of Banff, with agreement with the provincial government of Alberta wherein, by and large, municipal law is what we follow in our municipal procedures.

As far as Banff goes, I think that surrender of powers is extremely well used by the Town of Banff and is benefiting Canada. A lot of what we're doing is what the rest of Parks Canada is implementing—this no net environmental impact. As difficult as that is to decide and define as to what is a bare and essential use, we're living with that on a day-to-day basis. We are exercising powers and I think actually moving into a vacuum where nothing has ever been before. We're the first community in North America to get involved in some of these aspects.

So I agree with you in theory. The minister has a lot of power. By virtue of contracts that Mr. Tilleman has alluded to, she has surrendered some of those powers, and I think they've been very ably used in Banff.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: So you would be satisfied with the bill as it is actually phrased to maintain this equilibrium you've been living with?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: With that one indication that I mentioned in my submission with respect to I think clause 33, about writing in stone the commercial boundaries. That's a flaw, because somebody could come around tomorrow and say we're going to give you some land for a library, but we're negotiating right now with the possibility of a new post office, and for us to have to go to Parliament and say we want to change the zoning for one piece of property and downzone another, for the business person that deal may no longer be on the table by the time you people get around to it. And you shouldn't be involved in that day-to-day micromanaging of the park and the townsite.

• 2010

The overall global concept is what I hope this legislation is going to achieve, and within the context of that, except for that one comment, I think you're on your way to achieving your goals.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Could we have the business point of view from Mr. Everest on this?

The Chair: Mr. Everest.

Mr. Roy Everest: I would say that Parks Canada does not do a very good job of running the community of Jasper. Of course Jasper has never entered into an agreement with the federal government regarding its municipal government. Although subsection 8(2) of the existing act did provide for that, it's something that has been continually negotiated over the past 30 years, but we've never managed to bring those negotiations to fruition.

Parks Canada may do a very good job of managing Canada's national parks, but they just get bogged down in the details of trying to run national park communities. That is why in 1990 they approached the towns of Banff and Jasper and tried to give up these powers.

I honestly believe that national parks and national communities have the same goals and desires and that we can work well together. But for thousands of years the municipal form of government has been used, and it works because it's effective.

I'll give you some brief examples of how Parks Canada is not an effective manager. Despite Parks Canada's stated concerns regarding potential overdevelopment in the national parks and under the restriction of a commercial building moratorium imposed by the minister, there is still development that is proceeding within the downtown core in Jasper. Over the past years, as Parks Canada has restricted commercial development more and more and at the same time refused to contemplate expanding the residential land base, this has in fact encouraged the incursion of commercial use into residential areas through a private home accommodation policy. In effect, it's creating a community that is filled with small hotels in residential areas. This is creating a housing crisis within Jasper.

Although Parks Canada is the municipal authority in Jasper, it has refused to address the problem of the housing shortage within the community. There will be something like 300 seasonal residents with no place to live this summer because the superintendent of the national park has stated that this is not Parks Canada's problem. That's a very interesting stance for a municipal government to adopt.

These are only a few very select instances of how the system is not working. The system is in complete paralysis, and has been for at least ten years. Decisions are not getting made because there are issues as to authority, and decision-making just doesn't move anywhere.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Everest.

Next is Mr. Bonwick, followed by Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I have some questions for some of the witnesses.

If you get a chance to look through the minutes on the Internet, you'll see the different positions the different witnesses have taken, and you'll find out the balancing act that's required by all members of the committee in trying to siphon through. Mr. Tilleman, yours was certainly a very balanced one.

Although my riding is not identical to yours, Your Worship, it has similar situations that we experience on a day-to-day basis. The Niagara Escarpment runs through my riding, so we're limited in building. Having sat on municipal council as well and with part of the portfolio being business development, I can appreciate some of the encumbrances you face when you're looking at expansion or rezoning.

There was an interesting statement made—and I'm not sure which gentleman made it—a couple of days ago. He said that one thing the committee should always keep in mind when dealing with this piece of legislation is that the national interest is absolutely paramount and must override the local interest. He said that the responsibility of Parliament is most certainly the national interest, and that although the local interest is valued, it's not supreme. So keep that in mind when you're dealing with this particular bill. That's how I'm viewing it.

• 2015

It's absolutely imperative that there be a consultative process in place and that the minister cannot waver from that consultative process. But at the end of the day, the minister of the day must make a decision based on the national interest, and sometimes the two positions are going to collide.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, to Your Worship and to the chamber as well, do you acknowledge that the paramount interest must be the national perspective? Secondly, when you start talking about restrictions on businesses and residential development, do most people who are locating in that area—because they certainly do in my area when they start locating on the Niagara Escarpment—not go in with the mindset that if you're operating a business, there are going to be incredibly tight restrictions and that from a residential standpoint there are going to be limited things you can do?

I know that in my particular area it gets right down to the colour you can paint your house. It comes down to how big your house is going to be and its density, square footage, height, and proximity on the lot. People who are locating there or are interested in expanding there or doing business there know that the controls in place in areas such as that are going to be far stricter than in areas outside of an area like that.

Your Worship, you described a situation—and I was trying to write it down quickly—where, for example, a property owner was prepared to contribute land for use as a public library, and you said that really the federal government or Parks Canada is not equipped to decide whether or not that property should be used as a library; that is a decision that best lies with the mayor.

If we look at the primary responsibility that is being assigned to the minister of maintaining the ecological integrity, I would suggest that contradicts the minister's mandate by virtue of the fact that if you're creating a library, you're potentially creating a much higher-use business or industry on a particular piece of property. Therefore, if we're following through on the minister's mandate, the final decision should lie with Parks Canada to assess if there is any ecological impact in that specific regard.

How am I doing for time?

The Chair: I hope you've been making notes, Paul, as you go.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I like to do it all at once. That way I don't have to go back and forth with each person.

To Mr. Tilleman, I think your approach was very well balanced, and I appreciate it, but you suggested that there is a contradiction, if I understood you properly, between use versus the overriding mandate, the overriding mandate being that the minister is primarily responsible for the ecological integrity of the park but is dually responsible for ensuring that there is use of a park. I would suggest that there is not a contradiction between those two, because the primary responsibility is the ecological integrity, and as long as that is the primary one, it's not contradictory. In fact, there's a mandate in there to encourage use as long as it doesn't compromise. It would be interesting to hear your points on that.

How am I doing for time, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Not very well.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: You can tell you're excellent witnesses.

Subclause 16(1) states that the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the following points. I would suggest that if you read subclauses 12(1) and (2), you'll see that there is an absolute responsibility on the part of the minister to embark on a consultative process with all applicable bodies to ensure that they have input into the decision. But again, the overriding mandate of the minister is the ecological integrity, and she or he will make that final decision.

I'll leave it at that. Perhaps, Your Worship, you could start.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: I'm glad you're not on my council.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

• 2020

Mr. Dennis Shuler: I agree that Parliament should be supreme. I think you're assuming that the town's interests might be separate from those the minister has, and I suggest to you that they're not. Within the boundaries of the park but outside the town of Banff, the minister delegates those responsibilities to the quality experts, the trained professionals, to administrate on her behalf. By and large, I think they do a very good job. Within the townsite of Banff, she has delegated that responsibility to the local government, which has the expertise and represents the locals.

I don't represent the business community of Banff any more or any less than I represent the environmentalists. Again, I think that when one moves into a national park, one finds that one's interests tend to merge. Really, the interest of a business person in Banff is in seeing the ecological integrity of the Banff park being preserved. Otherwise, ultimately there's no source of that business to be there and it would just dry up and blow away.

So I think the minister has done a very good job in delegating that responsibility to the people who have the skills to do that. I don't disagree with you; I think the legislation and the procedures we've gotten to today are very good.

Going to a library example, I have some problems in saying—and you made some assumptions there—that a library is going to have an increased use as opposed to a decreased use. We shouldn't make those assumptions one way or the other. I find that as soon as one gets into dealing with local government, there are always the competing issues.

One shouldn't always assume that the worst is what we're going to be moving towards. I think by and large in Banff we're moving towards better things than what they were before. You're welcome to come to Banff and visit and see it. Really I would hope that the minister would not have to come to Banff and decide whether that fence should be pink or red. Leave it up to the people in Banff to decide whether they like pink or red.

The Chair: Mr. Tilleman, do you want to pick up the questions?

Mr. William Tilleman: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You've asked me to look at clause 4 and also clause 8. I agree that clause 8 goes farther in ensuring that ecological integrity is the priority if there's a tie to be broken. Before, ecological integrity was restricted to visitor use in the context of a management plan, and it hasn't always been filed on time, as you know. Maybe it will be in the future, but it hasn't been in the past. Now this has gone one step further, and I stated that I think that's a good thing.

On clause 4, I still do believe there are competing statements of policy in that section. I think you have to have them. The competing statement is that on the one hand, parks are maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired, and on the other hand, they're for enjoyment. The word “enjoyment” is the people word. It's the enjoyment of future generations. You could have put a period after “unimpaired”. You could have crossed off “enjoyment”, but you didn't, of necessity. People use parks. That's been the history of the parks.

There is still that competition, but it doesn't.... As I said, I think you've taken the right step by adding clause 8 to give it the emphasis that it didn't have before.

Regarding your second question about whether we can use clause 16 regulations or we can rely back on clause 12, “opportunities for public participation”, I have two contexts. The first one is that you already did use clause 12 when Minister Copps and Secretary Mitchell engaged a public forum and discussed all of these things. The result was that there should be ski area regulations. That was a result of the panel and that was accepted by the leaders in Ottawa, but it never happened. So where is it in clause 16? I think it should be there and I stand on that. The ski areas may or may not like what I'm saying, and that's for them to deal with. I don't ski.

My second point is about lessees. Should you scrap the old lease and licence of occupation regulation and replace it with the new one because of things that have never been addressed before? As I told you, there are issues of renewals, assignments, operations, experience and background of the new lessee, financial strength, and so on and so forth. That is my opinion.

• 2025

I think you're right that this has not been vetted publicly. I'm sure the lessees would want to share their own views with you on that, and maybe clause 12 is a mechanism for that. All I'm warning you about now is that you're using the termination clause in this particular bill. If it's passed, you're going to immediately engage those interests and I'm trying to give you a heads-up.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll pass on to Mr. Bélanger.

I would say to Mr. Everest and Mr. DeMarco that if you want to intervene briefly when there are questions to the others, you may.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayor, you're a very fortunate man to be the mayor of the town of Banff. I think there are a lot of people in Canada who would envy you that.

You say in your brief that the town is supportive and pleased with Bill C-27. You repeated that tonight. Would you agree with me as to the genesis of this bill, what caused it to be? My supposition is that at some point, there was a realization that development was getting out of control.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: I agree with you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You recognize therefore that there is a need for a cap on commercial development, the amount of commercial space.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: When Banff was incorporated under the old park rules at that time, when we inherited and took over your rules, 2.2 million additional square feet would have been allowed. These are approximate figures. The town on its own, without direct input but with approval from the government, reduced that substantially and then reduced it again to about 850,000. Then the minister reduced it unilaterally but within the limits of what the majority of the local community felt it should be, somewhere between 650,000 and 1.1 million square feet. With lands that the parks were going to be taking out of use themselves, they reduced that down to 350,000 square feet.

Let me emphasize that prior to local government, if Banff had continued on, it would be a monstrosity. The initiatives were started by the local government and continued. It became really a national and international issue, but it started with Banff. I submit that the reason you people are here tonight is because of the things Banff has done, which caught the national attention and started the process perhaps 10 or 15 years earlier than it might well have happened otherwise. Then we would have had major problems on hand.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Your point is well taken, but we do agree that the cap is essential, right?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: I agree that a cap is essential.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay.

Mr. Shuler or Mr. Everest, is there an aftermarket on the leases?

Mr. Roy Everest: Yes, there is.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can you explain for our benefit why that is, how that came to be?

Mr. Roy Everest: The current national park leaseholding systems within Jasper are much different from those in the rest of the country. Leases initially within Jasper National Park were long-term, perpetually renewable leases. It was a way to pretty much grant freehold, except that there's a reversion to the crown, and the minister always has the power to take a lease back if somebody isn't maintaining their property, isn't being a good steward of the land.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Has that happened on a residential lease?

Mr. Roy Everest: In Jasper, never.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay, but there's an aftermarket. Therefore, someone who owns a lease is essentially reselling it to someone else, who then goes looking for a mortgage to be able to live there, correct?

Mr. Roy Everest: That's correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's an interesting proposition. Some people are profiting from having a lease in the national park. Is that correct?

Mr. Roy Everest: I suppose it would depend on your definition of profit.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Making a profit.

Mr. Roy Everest: Most leaseholders would say that their maintenance of the property—

Mr. Dennis Shuler: There's value in the lease.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, no, they're renting it. They have a lease with a certain amount of money that they pay to Parks Canada, correct?

Mr. Roy Everest: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And they in turn sublet that same lease for a higher amount to someone else, either on a residential or a commercial basis, correct?

Mr. Roy Everest: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question one more time?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: An individual has a lease with Parks Canada and pays a certain amount.

Mr. Roy Everest: That's correct.

• 2030

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That individual turns around and sublets, further leases, that same property for a higher amount. Correct?

Mr. Roy Everest: Generally, yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's called making a profit.

Mr. Roy Everest: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a difficulty with the proposition that some people would profit from the lease that they have in a national park. Do you?

Mr. Roy Everest: Not at all. We live in a capitalistic system. The reason the leaseholds were set up the way they were was Parks Canada wanted to encourage service communities within national parks. They enticed people to come in there. I've lived in Jasper all my life. My grandfather lived and died in the national parks. We provide a very strategic service to three million Canadians who come to that national park on an annual basis.

These national parks are not like eastern national parks. Jasper is 10.8 million hectares—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, you're getting me wrong.

The Chair: Hold it. Give him a chance.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, because he misunderstood me. I don't have a problem with people making a profit per se. We do live in a capitalistic society. I have a problem when the people make more money than Parks Canada could be getting in terms of revenue on that same property for the benefit of all Canada.

Why is Parks Canada letting some people profit on leases where they could get a higher revenue on those leases?

Mr. Roy Everest: I would say it's because that's the system, and that system works. Individuals are probably better managers of their property when they're self-interested in that property. I think you will find that there isn't a single lease owner in Jasper who is not an excellent steward of his land who keeps that land in top condition because it's good for business.

The leasehold compensation systems that are set up for the crown are tied to either a percentage of gross or a percentage of the value of land, which means that as land increases in value the crown derives a greater return as a result of that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've been hearing a lot of people squawking about the fact that some of the leases that are up for renewal now—and, as you say, are based on the land value, which is set by provincial authority, I gather, some mechanism.... Is there no independence in setting the value of the land?

Mr. Roy Everest: There is. It's a private contract.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So some of the leases that are coming up for renewal are based on the percentage of the land value. Correct?

Mr. Roy Everest: That's correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So if the land value has increased significantly in the decade, should the amount tied to that value not also increase by a similar amount, similar in relation? If it's 6% of the land value lease, and if the land value increases fivefold, do you agree that the lease should also increase fivefold?

Mr. Roy Everest: Actually I have a very difficult concept with the entire value of leasehold evaluations. There is what I would call a mythology that Her Majesty derives some sort of value from national parks land, or is entitled to a fair return on national parks land. Yet national parks land as a leaseholding or land-holding system is very similar to Indian reserves and military bases. I don't see how Her Majesty gets a return, or gets some sort of value from those types of properties.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So it's not okay for Her Majesty to get a return, but it is for private individuals.

Mr. Roy Everest: Absolutely. Those private individuals have risked their life's capital to set up those businesses in an attempt to incur a profit, and as a result—-

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, you mentioned in your brief people who were seeking lending from a financial institution to pay for these subleases. Is there a reason why there hasn't been a homegrown financial institution created over these years? Is there one?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: There is a Banff credit union, but it's very small.

I'd like to expound a little bit on what Mr. Everest said. I can see your point. If you look at it from a purely academic point of view, one can accept that. But if you look at Banff—and I can only relate to Banff because that's where I live.... Let's say a park warden moves to Banff, and he earns say $45,000 a year. To buy a house in Banff, a lease—a sublet, if you want—that may have been issued in 1920, he pays fair value for it, similar to what he would pay anywhere else in the country, but higher. When he retires, when he sells, when he dies, that property is passed on or sold, and there's a reasonable expectation for him to feel like he's made a profit. I suggest that is not unreasonable.

I'll use the example where I have my house.... I'm not mowing my lawn today, and I should be getting out there and digging dandelions on the weekend. If somebody says I'm making an unreasonable profit because I'm doing those improvements to my land, it's just like you would be doing to your house on the weekend; there's no difference.

• 2035

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There is. I don't live in a national park.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: No, you don't. But on the other hand, I think my being there enhances the park in the stewardship I represent to that park.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Last question, then I'll quit.

I thought there was a policy that people who lived in parks are there because they have a function related to the park.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: That is correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is that true for everyone who is living in Banff or Jasper?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: You have to have a need to reside in Banff National Park or in any national park.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Does Parks Canada apply that?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: Parks Canada applies that and it's in the terms of the lease.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So the original leaseholders, do they work in the parks?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: Some of the leases have been 100 years old, 75 years old. Those people are no longer around. The leases are just transferred from one person to the next person—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Without them living in the park necessarily or living there because they have to work there.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: Anybody can buy a lease in the park, but to occupy that piece of land they have to have a need to reside, and that is to work in the park at a bona fide business that is servicing either the locals—and that's where you can have differences of opinion on what that should be—or a visitors' service business. There are no car dealerships in Banff. There are no cement manufacturers. There are local plumbers, there are local lawyers—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There's a plastic surgeon.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: There's a legitimate dispute over some of the medical services we have and the quality we have.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You're being very patient.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Yes, it's my turn now.

Thank you for coming to this committee. I certainly listened intently to what each of you had to say.

I'll start off, just for the information of people here and for the benefit of the members around the table, by giving you an idea of the differences between Banff—which has its own municipality, autonomy so to speak—and Jasper. Banff pays Parks Canada $530,000 a year, and that's basically it. Under the new assessment and in Jasper, with the new leaseholds and so on, the Town of Jasper, the people living in Jasper, are being asked to pay $4.5 million for a population that's probably half of Banff's. Certainly there's something wrong there somewhere. There's a discrepancy.

Taxes have been increased to the extent that two or three hotels in Jasper, and that's not including Jasper Park Lodge—it's the ordinary hotels in Jasper, although you can't say any of them are ordinary, because they really aren't—will be paying as much as the entire town of Banff pays. And I say this just so that people know what's going on here with Jasper not getting autonomy, even though they've tried for 30 years and have been living under the parks superintendent, of course, under the legislation that's provided by the federal government. That's their reality. And of course this bill, the way I understand it, provides that Jasper will never get a local form of government. Certainly the people of Jasper are upset with that. It really isn't acceptable at all.

My question is really for Mr. DeMarco. What you say, Mr. DeMarco, in the overview in your presentation is that the ecological values and integrity of Canada's national parks are under serious threat. I ask what is happening, for example, in Jasper, because you must be including in this Jasper National Park. What is so catastrophic that is happening in Jasper National Park, keeping in mind that Jasper is not nearly as commercialized as Banff? How do you see Jasper developing over the next 10, 15, or 20 years? Would you like to see a limit on the population and on business growth in Jasper National Park? And in heaven's name, who can and who cannot determine what should be the appropriate population of Jasper?

• 2040

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: I'll try to deal with that complex question.

As you know, Sierra Legal Defence Fund has been involved in two recent cases about Jasper. One was with respect to the commercial rafting and the ducks. In that case we were in support of the federal government. In another case we were at odds with the federal government over approving a mine next to Jasper Park. So the threats can come from within and from without.

The fact that some parks are under more threat than others—for instance, Point Pelee or Banff may be under more threat than Jasper—isn't a reason to ignore the fact that there are threats throughout the system, with the possible exception of some of the very far northern ones like Vuntut. So I can do no better than the panel's report in terms of summarizing the threats to the park. There is a litany of threats that range from overdevelopment within the park, to transboundary air pollution, to the introduction of exotic species.

My future vision of the park is one that I think is shared with the statements of the minister in recent times and with the ecological integrity panel. That is, a future that actually tries to put into practice the clause that has stood for many years, which is to leave them unimpaired for future generations. And that's future generations of all Canadians. These are not typical local municipalities like the ones you and I live in—in my case, a small township originally near Point Pelee and now in Toronto for work purposes. These are national parks, and they have national values that have to be given pre-eminent standing.

Just to clarify our interest in this, we actually support local initiatives in terms of the vast majority of environmental and quality-of-life decision-making. In fact, I'm representing the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in the next test case trying to protect municipal rights over quality-of-life bylaws in Canada, with Quebec being the test case.

Generally speaking, I see an important role for local municipalities in protecting their own quality of life and the interests of their residents. But these are national parks. They occupy just a small percentage of this country, and they are being managed according to a different mandate from the entire remainder of the land base. That vision has to be guided by ecological integrity, the protection of parks, not simply an expectation that they are communities like any other.

It's a privilege to live in a national park. It was a privilege for me to grow up just next to one. It in fact guided me into this line of work. And I don't think we should expect that those communities are going to be identical in terms of the level of autonomy and property rights that may be enjoyed in other parts of the country, because, as we know, these landscapes are protected for national purposes.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Do you think that, for example, Jasper should never have the right to have some form of municipal government, whereas Banff achieved that a mere ten years ago? This bill will shut out Jasper forever in that particular endeavour.

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: The jury is still out on that question. I'm not entirely in agreement with His Worship that the creation of that government actually helped the situation in Banff. I can't predict what would have happened in the absence of the creation of that local government, so I don't necessarily agree that the Banff experience does need to be replicated. In fact, what I would like to see is that in whatever system is in place, whether it's the Banff model in Banff, the federal control model in the rest of them, whatever that is, there are clear lines in the legislation that say whoever's making the decision is guided by very clear principles of ecological integrity, not just run-of-the-mill municipal governance models. I look at it more from what is the decision-making test, as opposed to who is making this decision.

• 2045

The Chair: We'll start a second round. I'll give a question to Mr. Limoges, who hasn't had any, and then Mr. Mark, Mr. de Savoye, and Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It would appear from all I've heard tonight that we all generally agree with the principle that the ecological integrity of these parks is paramount. It seems we also agree that the reason for having people live within a park setting should be to serve the park.

In other words, in the Point Pelee model the park is not so large that it requires people to live on site. Quite frankly, a gateway type of community can service most of the needs, and people can access the park and enjoy its beauty, without the need to have people living there. I'm not really that intimately familiar with Banff or Jasper, but I assume from their geographical sizes that's not the case. You actually need people to live in there to service the needs of the park.

I guess we get to the point of asking how we can best accomplish that. There's some history, I understand, with it. Historically, we've said, by offering land leases, that individuals are able to make some leasehold improvements, to the point of building a house, a business, and so on, and then have the natural expectation that there will be some value built up in the capital they've invested there that would have a resale value.

Just following up on my colleague's questions, with regard to profiting from the lease within the park, I assume the value of those leasehold improvements would be a function of the amount of capital invested, the size of the house, and so on—as it would be in other locales—as well as the amount of time remaining on the lease, the amount of money being paid to lease that land, and for how much time. All of those things would have to be taken into account in coming up with a value that somebody in the free market would be willing to pay for that particular property.

Is that how it works? Am I off base with that?

Mr. Roy Everest: Generally, it's been my experience that a market resale value on a leasehold is just that. Because Parks Canada policy has always been to renew leases, it doesn't matter if there's one year left or 41 years left, unless you're somebody who really takes a lot of comfort in having 41 out of 42 years left on a 42-year lease.

Mr. Rick Limoges: So there's no value in having, for example, a ten-year lease at a certain dollar amount, as opposed to one year left on the lease, knowing that at the end of that year your lease costs could go up dramatically.

Mr. Roy Everest: It hasn't made any change in market conditions. If Parks Canada stopped renewing leases, I think you would see a dramatic review of what exactly a lease was worth.

Mr. Rick Limoges: So you're really profiting from your capital investment on that lease to make the leasehold improvements, and not necessarily simply from the lease. In other words, when you sell that property you're not charging somebody a higher lease value for the next ten years than what you're paying—or are you?

Mr. Roy Everest: When the leasehold system was set up sometime in the last century, the entire basis of it was just to encourage people to have a place to live and a place to work within a national park.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Again, to live there you have to have a purpose for being there. You can't just be a visitor.

Mr. Roy Everest: That's right. So the purpose of the leasehold system is really to allow people to fill those functions. Whether you are able to profit from a lease or not is something that has been discussed within the town. They have slowly come up with ideas like housing cooperatives that fix profits to a specified rate of inflation. Nobody wants to work or make an investment in a house without any sense of return.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Clearly, you have to give them an opportunity to profit from any improvements they make, or they won't make the improvements and the grade of the housing stock will decline dramatically. Is that how it works?

• 2050

For example, if you own a house that is on leasehold property and decide to move and sell your house, somebody will buy you out, and you wash your hands of it. Is that right?

Mr. Roy Everest: That is correct.

Mr. Rick Limoges: So you're not actually subletting. You are selling your interest, and the new owner of that leasehold improvement takes over the lease with the federal government.

Mr. Roy Everest: Yes. The process is called an assignment-of-lease process.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't of the impression that somehow you kept an interest and were subletting and charging a higher lease than what you were paying, and profiting directly from that lease.

So any profit you make is actually profit on the investment you made in that property and the general value of real estate, as it moves. You could also lose money on it.

M. Roy Everest: Absolutely.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

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

The Chair: I want to remind you, we are supposed to close at nine o'clock. It's 8:50, but I think we're a bit flexible.

Mr. Inky Mark: I have just one brief question for Mr. Everest.

Yesterday one of our witnesses made the statement that there was a Harley Davidson T-shirt shop in Banff. If that's the case, I suppose the question comes up whether it's justifiable that such a venture be there. Should parks regulate the type of business that occurs inside national parks?

Mr. Roy Everest: Parks Canada already does that, through various zoning and business licensing. Certain of the more archaic leases regulate already what can and cannot be operated within a national park.

I have always been a subscriber to an Adam Smith view that if you have a system that calls for a need, something will arise to fulfil that need. I think it gets very dangerous to say “Well, obviously nobody would want Harley Davidson T-shirts, so let's micro-manage these communities and have extremely long lists of the types of merchandise people can or cannot carry.” It's just so easy to let somebody operate a shop as they feel fit to do so.

Parks Canada, in their leases and also in their system of devising what a lease is worth, always uses a method called the highest and best use. But if that highest and best use restricts you from doing everything except, for example, selling Gucci shoes, perhaps that's not worth it to anybody, except one person. Once you get into specifically regulating what you can and can't do, it is really a terribly inefficient way to run a town, or to run business in a community generally.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I would like to come back to the lease thing. I'll explain to you what I understand, and then you can educate me where I'm wrong.

I understand I could go to Banff and lease a piece of land. Then if I'm a corporation with some money, I could build a hotel. That's probably the way some hotels in Banff or Jasper have been built. So what do I lease exactly—the land or the building? When I sell, do I sell the building I've built, or the lease that includes the building because the building is on leased land? How does it work exactly?

Mr. Roy Everest: Generally speaking—

The Chair: Okay. We'll start with Jasper and then the mayor, because there are two different set-ups.

Mr. Roy Everest: —in Jasper National Park there is almost no raw land that could possibly be developed. The community, I would say, is between 97% and 99% built out.

So when you purchase a property under a leasehold system, you're really purchasing a leasehold interest in the property. The only thing that's different currently is there is a chance that a leasehold term might not be renewed at some point in the future. But really, if you were to purchase a business anywhere across the country, or Jasper, you would be governed by market rates in effect, and in my experience leasehold terms haven't been an issue.

• 2055

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You never buy a building itself. You buy a lease really, and the building is included in that. Whatever improvements you make on it are not your own really. They're just improvements to a rented thing that you will have to give or to sell back to someone else as a lease interest.

Mr. Roy Everest: The leasehold structure is.... There are probably as many different leases and types of property or situations as there are actual physical leases. Some would call for new construction. Some, let's say commercial properties that have been zoned commercial since the 1970s, actually have a residence sitting on them or a house sitting on them, which somebody may develop at some point. So it's very hard to say. There are very many different situations.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: What is the difference in Banff?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: Really there is no difference, except that locally we strictly govern the architecture, how the building is built, and in Jasper it's decided administratively.

What I think you're alluding to is that the hotels there are there to service the visitors. The quality of that hotel and the customers they're going to get depends on what kind of building they build, what they can get for rents, and what expectation they have of making a profit. If a person is going to put $5 million or $10 million into building a hotel and at the end of a certain term of the lease discover that he doesn't own it any more, and it's going up to public bid by the government or the government is going to take it over, I think very quickly you're going to find the quality of that hotel has dropped so fast and so far that nobody is going to want to stay in that hotel, and the whole system will implode on itself.

Jasper and Banff, unfortunately, for purely ecological reasons, were there a long time before the park was really established, but they're there and they're a fact of life, just as are the railway and the Trans-Canada Highway going through Banff and the highway and railway going through Jasper. They have a big ecological impact, and it's unfortunate, but we have to recognize that in the national interest, they have to be there. The economic cost to move those, which would have an ecological impact somewhere else.... Then you'd have two valleys destroyed.

So your committee has to find a fine balance between what is already there, recognizing reality and trying to cope with that for future generations, and then looking at other national parks where there is no human development and you're able to deal with that and the expectations and there's no problem.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I feel a little bit more educated now on the lease issue. Thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to go back to the assignment of leases. Am I to understand all subleases are assigned?

Mr. Roy Everest: By far the largest number of property owners in Jasper is the type who, let's say in a residential system, has a lease and lives on that property, or if they have a business, they operate the business from that. However, as in any place in Canada, you'll have people who might actually have a mall, who would operate and sublet it to a number of different people. We use the term “lessee” to describe a property owner, and really that's what a lessee is, a property owner, the way the system has worked.

Of course there are potentials to sublease properties. If I owned a mall with five different shops in it, if I were so fortunate, naturally I wouldn't be able to run all of those myself, and I'd be able to sublet those, but—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But they wouldn't be assigned necessarily.

Mr. Roy Everest: No.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And the same thing for residential? Are they all assigned, all subleases?

Mr. Roy Everest: Most people would own their own home, which would mean a sublease they have is assigned by the Parks Canada land office locally.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: My colleague here was asking, and the exchange left the impression that all such subleases were assigned. It's not my information.

Mr. Roy Everest: I should say that just as a commercial lessee can rent to sublessees, so somebody who does have a basement suite and a property that's zoned for it could rent out that suite as well, or sublet that suite.

• 2100

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I don't want to pursue that, because I want to correct an impression that might have been left from one of our colleagues across the way.

There was mention that the Town of Jasper might be paying $4.5 million to Parks Canada every year, and Banff only half a million. That leaves $13.5 million out of the equation.

Am I correct, Mr. Mayor, in thinking you collect about $14 million from the residents of Banff, roughly?

Mr. Dennis Shuler: Our municipal taxes are about $8 million, and then more than that is collected for the provincial school tax. Out of your property tax is a segment that would go from the town to—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But to say the people of Banff only pay half a million dollars is not correct. They only pay half a million dollars to Parks Canada, but collectively they contribute in taxes much more than that every year.

Mr. Dennis Shuler: That's correct, to pay for services.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that was understood.

Also, am I to believe Jasper voted against self-government back in 1988?

Mr. Roy Everest: That is correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

I have a final question. Well, it's not a question; it's a statement. I'm not sure exactly. On a per-park municipality basis, some of them may very well contribute more than they receive. But it should be noted that overall, in the six park communities, the operating budget of Parks Canada contributes $2.5 million a year to the maintenance and upkeep of those communities.

I'm not suggesting they all benefit. It might be. I'd have to check each one individually. But before anyone leaves with the impression that Parks Canada profits from these park communities, it's the other way around. And we don't begrudge that, because we understand the value of having some of those communities and that they have to be upkept and so forth. But $2.5 million annually from Parks Canada's operating budget is used to help those communities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We don't want to start a debate, but Mr. Breitkreuz, if you want to say something, that's all right, briefly.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Parks Canada does profit from Jasper National Park, just to correct that too.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bonwick, you wanted a brief question—this time, brief.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I might run for council.

I wanted to address this word that's being vented around, “profit”, more specifically regarding the leases. I tend to perhaps side more with Mr. Everest in his statement that the owners of these leases can possibly do a better job at maintaining said properties than the federal government could, and I would suggest certainly they can do it in a much more cost-effective manner, but the end result must be that they're able to make money off it.

This is more for the record, and I'd be interested in Mr. DeMarco's opinion on it. In dealing with these leases of government, it's important that we note for the record that we realize revenue indirectly as a result of these leases as well, insofar as the individuals at the said properties maintain and develop them, and we have significant tax revenues that come in because of the size of the economies in these parks as well. That's something we must appreciate from the private sector as well. It's fine to talk about the municipal taxes, but we also collect significant amounts of federal income tax, and the provinces collect significant amounts of provincial taxes as well.

So it's important that we create an impression, at least within the minister's preview, that there is significant benefit from a revenue standpoint, not simply from the $500,000 that would be collected, but indirectly from the various revenue sources from an income standpoint. So in that respect, I'm wondering if Mr. DeMarco would care to comment on whether that philosophy should be part of the minister's overall thinking when looking at leases and renewal of leases: that a very significant portion of the revenue is indirect by way of taxes?

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: I agree that should be put into the equation. I actually would take it a step further though, if you want to look at all those full revenues, and look at some of the hidden costs that you aren't necessarily typically looking at in administering this entire lease system, and the fact that there has to be a bureaucracy to service that, which wouldn't otherwise exist if the park community weren't there. So I'd like to see it as full-cost accounting in terms of the direct bureaucratic expenditures in administering the system and in terms of what some of environmental costs are that are associated with it.

• 2105

If you're going to expand the ambit, I don't want to see it expanded on only one side of the ledger. I want to see it on both sides: from an economic point of view and from an environmental one.

I should state that it has been a very long day for me. Every year I spend this week in Whitevale. I got up at five to do our bird-watching expedition in the morning, then drove to Toronto and then flew here. I'm flying back, and the last flight is at ten, so if there are any more questions for me, I should take those now, because I would like to rejoin my family—my daughter and my wife—

The Chair: I'll tell you what we'll do. By unanimous consent of the committee, which I will declare, we'll release you to go back to your family right away. You don't even have to wait. Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Jerry DeMarco: I'll provide a written report of our bird-watching expedition if you want.

The Chair: All right.

Just before we close, I would like to mention to members that tomorrow morning at nine o'clock we have a session in Room 269 West Block, where we have two different groupings, one from Calgary and one from Jasper, and then one from Manitoba and one from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. In deference to our guests, I hope we'll all show up.

I would also like to say that at eleven there will be taxis outside of West Block to take us to the Museum of Nature, where we have a meeting with the Museum of Nature—and lunch—until 1:30. I think it's going to be a very interesting event.

Before we close, I would like to pay my warm thanks on behalf of the committee to the three of you—plus Mr. DeMarco, who has left—for having come such a long way. It has been a very interesting round table, with diverse views, but this is really what we are about: to try to find out where the balance and the compromises lie for the legislation. We thank you very, very much for being here tonight.

The meeting is adjourned.