CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 28, 1998

• 1118

[English]

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

[Translation]

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of the House dated Thursday, March 19, 1998, we are studying Bill C-29, an Act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence.

[English]

Today, we're pleased to welcome two witnesses: from the Jasper Tourism and Commerce Centre, Mr. Roy Everest, secretary; and from the Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment, Mr. Brad Pierce, president. Good morning.

If you could take maybe 15 minutes each for your presentations, the floor will be open to questions so that members have time to question you. Whoever wants to start, please go ahead.

Mr. Brad J. Pierce (President, Association for Mountains Parks Protection and Enjoyment): Thank you so much for hearing from our association today.

• 1120

I would like to apologize. I notice that Normand Radford had been distributing our brief. I am not confused about what committee I'm before today, and I apologize for the typo on the report. I will be getting a revised version to each member of the committee.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): We love being senators. It's okay.

Mr. Brad Pierce: Hopefully you'll take it in stride. I am.

I would like to first start off and give you a little background about our association. We've not been well heard of. We don't seem to be able to get our name in the press as other groups do, but we're a non-profit association, the mandate of which is to balance the interests of those who want to use and enjoy our national parks with the need to preserve these areas for future generations.

Since we were formed in 1994, we've been an active participant in establishing Parks Canada policies through its participation in public consultations regarding the four mountain parks management plans, the Banff-Bow Valley study, and numerous submissions to the Minister of Heritage and recently to the Secretary of State for Parks, and attending their various consultations.

As an association, we have also tested public perception through independent polling, and from these results we have determined that our position best reflects the views of the majority of the Canadian public with respect to our national parks.

Our association is of the view that the national parks across Canada have a multifaceted role and that this view is shared by a majority of Canadians. They are protected areas, and as an association we fundamentally support the conservation mandate, but not to the exclusion of all others.

If you take the time to read the numerous briefs we have submitted to various levels of government, you will see that our goal is to promote cooperation and positive measures to achieve the right balance for the future of our national parks. We have, however, been feeling increasingly challenged and overwhelmed by the pressure being exerted by the environmental movement, who view a different role for our national parks.

I would like to restate the preamble to our National Parks Act to remind everyone of the mandate. That preamble states:

The National Parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment...and the National Parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for...future generations.

Unfortunately, the unique balance suggested by that wording is not what many environmental groups would ascribe to, and they have sought quite effectively to discredit the efforts of Parks Canada and many other interests in the parks to make the conservation goal paramount. We are at the same time awed at the apparent effectiveness of these groups and dismayed by their tactics. It is largely for this reason that we appear before this committee today.

As an association, we are supportive of the initiative to establish Parks Canada. We are concerned, however, with some of the wording of the legislation that deviates from the established wording in the National Parks Act and introduces new concepts, albeit not in the operative provisions but which will be used and interpreted by some as introducing new limitations relating to human use in our national parks.

Our specific concerns revolve around two paragraphs, and it's in the national interest statement that these paragraphs appear.

In paragraph (g), the addition of the words “or restore” adds a concept not currently reflected in the National Parks Act and raises the whole spectre of concerns relating to the removal or limitation of existing operations or activities within our national parks. It also implies that Parks Canada has failed in its mandate to maintain ecological integrity and that it needs to be restored. There is no evidence to that effect that I am aware of, and I am confident that Parks Canada has done a good job in fulfilling its mandate. The bottom line with respect to these words is that they raise questions regarding the ecological state of the parks and are not necessary for the purpose of establishing a Parks Canada agency.

Our next worry is in paragraph (l). The language that states that the maintenance of ecological integrity shall be “a prerequisite to the use of national parks” also introduces a concept that is beyond what is currently reflected in the National Parks Act and is capable of abuse by special interests.

• 1125

The National Parks Act contemplates maintenance of ecological integrity shall be the first priority in making development decisions within the parks. It does not go so far as making it a precondition to use in every case. Again, we submit this language is not necessary to establish the agency and suggest this paragraph be deleted.

Although this language may seem innocuous and is effectively in the inoperative part of the legislation, it will be used in our view to promote the singular interests of conservation without regard to the broader public interest.

As an association, we actively support conservation. We are very concerned, however, that this unnecessary language will be used only as a tool to impose unnecessary restrictions upon the future use of our parks. This is not the legislative intent of Bill C-29, and any change in that direction should be addressed in the context of amendments to the National Parks Act.

I'd just like to reflect our position on Parks Canada. Some have suggested that the establishment of the Canadian Parks Agency amounts to privatization of our national parks and poses a threat to the ecological integrity of the parks. On the contrary, we believe it will make Parks Canada and its employees more responsible for their actions and to the parks constituents, both users and conservationists.

The impression unfortunately has been created that use and development in our national parks, and in particular in the four mountain parks, is out of control or in a state of imbalance. Simply stated, this is false, and it is being promoted to serve the particular interest of those who would like nothing better than for the problems in our national parks to continue to be spotlighted. It is a cause that enhances both their agenda and their fundraising efforts. It does nothing, however, to ensure a sustainable future for our national parks and the national parks yet to be created.

I would submit that there is room to expand opportunities and activities in our national parks without impacting the ecological integrity of these areas. In fact, this will be absolutely necessary if the desire to create new parks and a sustainable agency is the objective. This will not happen, however, if a different mandate for the parks is promoted in advance by the inclusion of concepts and language not fairly reviewed or debated by all constituents.

We respectfully submit, then, that those amendments be made to Bill C-29. I thank you for your time.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Everest.

Mr. Roy C. Everest (Secretary, Jasper Tourism and Commerce): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, mesdames and messieurs.

My organization is Jasper Tourism and Commerce, but I'm speaking to you today on behalf of the town of Jasper, and by extension on behalf of some 16,000 individuals living in seven national park communities. I'm going to concentrate on Jasper because that's my home town, where my family roots are, where four generations of us have lived.

Our main concern in Jasper is that we feel we are under attack from two sources. The first source is an immense bureaucracy that seeks to tax and regulate us to death. Having lived in Jasper all my life...the entire town of Jasper has gotten quite used to this.

However, more frightening to us is an attack from a powerful and well-organized environmental lobby that in our opinion is attempting to manipulate the national parks for its own ends.

Mr. Pierce has already read to you the existing mission statement of Parks Canada contained in section 4 of the National Parks Act, and I won't repeat that here. Suffice it to say that this provision of the act contains provisions that state that the national parks of Canada are to be made use of for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of Canada.

These provisions have been criticized by the environmental lobby as being diametrically opposed to the preservation sections in the act. Therefore we are greatly concerned by Bill C-29, in that it no longer makes any reference to use, enjoyment or benefit. The preamble now states that the national parks are to be “protected and presented”. A park can theoretically be presented without any human occupation or presence within that national park.

Further, the preamble of the national act sets up a national interest section that states “it is in the national interest...to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of national parks”.

Existing developments in the national parks have been threatened by recent Parks Canada policies. The Bow Valley study contains numerous recommendations to disenfranchise certain lessees who have operated in the national parks for numerous years.

• 1130

In addition, it is also stated to be in the national interest to maintain ecological and commemorative integrity as a prerequisite to the use of national parks and national historic sites. At an extreme, this may act as a complete barrier to any future changes or development in the national parks, as maintaining ecological integrity could necessitate never changing any existing use in those national parks.

We feel the environmental lobby has been well represented in the preamble to the Canadian Parks Agency legislation. However, this preamble does not mesh with the existing mission statement contained in section 4 of the National Parks Act. The representation of the environmental lobby is currently the only viewpoint that is being represented. We feel it is in the best interest of the country that the preamble be expanded to represent other viewpoints. My constituency feels the viewpoint that should be included is that of national parks communities.

First, I want to dispel the myth that the growth of these communities is out of control, and again I specifically refer to Jasper. Jasper has a long history. It dates back to 1813, almost 80 years before Jasper National Park was formed in 1907.

Jasper grew slowly during its original history. The first town plan was surveyed in 1930. Jasper has grown slowly and steadily since then, but it's always grown within existing town boundaries. The town boundaries are approximately 130 hectares, making the town site of Jasper a small island in an ocean of wilderness of approximately 10.9 million hectares.

The current population is approximately 4,500 inhabitants, and this population has been remarkably stable for the past 20 years. Jasper cannot experience any explosive growth due to extensive management plans that have been in place for the past 20 years, detailed regulations, and the fact that the land area simply does not allow expansion. Jasper operates quite well within its existing 130 hectares, and it's been going through a policy of in-fill, which generally means growing up, adding a second storey.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Canadian Parks Agency needs thriving national parks communities in order to fulfil its objectives. However, we're greatly concerned. First, the vast majority of revenue that is provided to the national parks comes through two communities. National parks last year realized gross revenues of approximately $55 million. Of this, Jasper alone generated 20% or $11 million. When you add the $16.5 million that Banff National Park generated, these two national parks generated fully half the revenue for the entire national parks system.

The provisions of the Canadian Parks Agency legislation will use these revenues to fund an additional 16 national parks. Although the direction of the Canadian Parks Agency legislation is quite clear in that their ultimate goal is to set up these new national parks, nothing is being done about the existing infrastructure in the national parks that we already have. Over the past 20 years this infrastructure has been allowed to steadily deteriorate and decline to the point where our sewage system in the town of Jasper is approximately 20 years overdue. The Jasper-Banff highway, possibly the most scenic highway in western Canada—I would say in all of Canada—is now being faced with an unbelievable maintenance bill that is growing steadily, and the funds are not available to provide these basic services. We think things will decline rather than improve under the new Canadian Parks Agency legislation.

I could stand here and complain about a lot of things that really aren't affected by this legislation, but we think a few minor changes to the existing legislation could solve a lot of problems. As my colleague, Mr. Pierce has stated, the preamble will form the mandate—the mission statement—that will give the guidepost of where the Canadian Parks Agency will head. We feel that numerous elements within this national intersection have no bearing within the Canadian Parks Agency at all. We feel the amendments we have proposed here in this extremely sketchy brief—I will be providing you with more detail very shortly—will allow the Canadian Parks Agency to better fulfil all viewpoints of interest in Canada.

• 1135

That's my presentation. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Everest.

I will now open the floor to questions.

Mr. Pankiw.

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

Mr. Everest, you mentioned that without the proposed amendments to the preamble you think the state of our national parks will deteriorate.

Mr. Roy Everest: That is true, primarily due to economic reasons. The overall thrust contained within the Canadian Parks Agency legislation—I believe it is clause 21—is towards the goal of setting up new parks. Although this goal is an admirable one and one that I support, I think it is equally important that the existing parks be maintained, because it is the existing parks that will allow the revenue base to acquire these parks in the future.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: And you don't think that the new parks agency will be able to maintain the infrastructure.

Mr. Roy Everest: Under existing appropriations and the direction that I see within Bill C-29, that is one of my greatest fears, yes.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Do you think it should be a requirement that the board of directors of the parks agency consists of representatives of at least the major parks in Canada? Jasper would be one of them.

Mr. Roy Everest: As I understand it, under the original background to Bill C-29, there was going to be a special advisory committee consisting of so-called special interest groups such as environmental lobbies and representatives from parks towns. However, the current direction, I am told, is that this is no longer the case. The existing national parks system is going to be mirrored within the Canadian Parks Agency.

Clause 16 of the bill states that the agency will be under the control of a chief executive officer who will file documents that will form the agency. He would, in the normal course, have had a board of directors to give him advice and direction.

I am told that all of these directors will consist of the six directors general already existing within the existing Parks Canada system, and that an outside body, which could be a watchdog or give voice to different interest groups, has now been dropped and is no longer under consideration.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: But I'm not really talking about an outside body comprised of special interest groups. I'm asking whether you think there would be any merit to suggesting that a certain percentage of the board of directors, or that perhaps three of the directors, must come from the following national parks: Jasper, Banff, etc.—in other words, from the biggest parks in our country.

Mr. Roy Everest: I absolutely agree. One of the greatest disadvantages being a resident of Jasper is that we have no form of empowered local government. We have an elected advisory committee that advises the superintendent. The superintendent is free to accept or ignore that advice. Accordingly, it gives local residents a tremendous sense of frustration in that they have no effective way to govern basic day-to-day decisions that guide their lives.

If residents were given an ability to have direct input at the top of the system rather than have recommendations at the bottom of the system, I think it would greatly change the way these local communities operate and would give local residents a say in basic decisions that guide their lives.

To give you an example of legislation that was recently passed, Jasper has long wanted a domestic animal guideline. I'll call it a “pooper scooper” law. The town committee made a recommendation to change a domestic animal regulation, which was accepted by the superintendent. This was approved by parks west region and finally by the local level. It was sent to the Secretary of State for Parks, who agreed that this was in the best interest of the town of Jasper. It was then sent to the minister, and then the privy council formed an amendment to the regulation. This one simple by-law or ordinance took about two and a half years.

• 1140

When you think that a small town would pass about 100 such by-laws or ordinances in a given year, the system of government—you can see the great difficulties we have with being governed by the Privy Council, and I'm sure they find the task equally frustrating. So yes, I think having some sort of local representation would be greatly advantageous.

Mr. Brad Pierce: If you are going to consider something like that, and I do remember that being discussed at Parks Canada's various consultations regarding this legislation, I think we need to have some oversight body or advisory board to Parks Canada. It's important to remember the user in that group and not just the people who operate or live within the parks.

The majority of people who get the benefit of our national parks are people who go there to recreate, vacation, and do other things. All too often, because that group is not in any way organized—not to claim that my group has a lack of organization, but I have found that group tremendously apathetic in the front end of policy development. At the back end, when the policies are being implemented and it effects them in their own backyard—for example, the proposed closure of Highway 1A in Banff—they scream bloody murder.

I think it's important that we don't underestimate the reaction of people when their access is restricted, when their opportunities are limited and the like, and I think it's important that we not create the atmosphere where that could easily happen.

Unfortunately, the impression I've received is that people in the east think there are shopping malls and subdivisions going up in the town of Banff, and that when you took out the airport you didn't just close a grass airstrip, you took out a control tower and a paved airstrip. That's simply not the case. Anyone who's been to Banff knows there are development issues, but the park is still relatively pristine, and we don't need to have these campaigns going on sending a bunch of misinformation to the public about what is happening. There are not 37 shopping malls going up in the town of Banff.

The Chairman: Mr. Pankiw, I'll come back to you.

[Translation]

Mrs. St-Hilaire, do you have any questions at this time?

[English]

Mr. Muise.

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

I apologize to the committee and to our guest, but I was detained at another meeting. I'm sorry about that, but I could not prevent it.

Mr. Pierce, in your brief you mentioned that there is room to expand opportunities and activities in our national parks without impacting the ecological integrity of these areas. Do you have any suggestions on how this could be accomplished?

Mr. Brad Pierce: I think we have the infrastructure in place to do that. Some of it flowed from the Bow Valley Study and some of it has been in the works for quite some time.

Currently in the national park, if you want to proceed with even a new activity, whether cross-country skiing, kayaking, or even an activity that was excluded recently, dog sledding.... If it has sufficient impact, or if you want to put up a new ski lift at one of the ski areas or a hotel or even a change a residence there, you must comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which applies only to federal lands and federal agencies, as you know.

• 1145

That act has three levels of study. There is a screening you can do under that legislation. There is, secondly, a comprehensive study, and then, thirdly, there is a panel, and a panel was formed to review a lift expansion at Sunshine Village recently.

But that legislation was designed, in my view, to address major projects, things like a $3.6 billion pipeline going across the country. The National Energy Board, when it reviewed that, determined that it should only be at the comprehensive study level. And that's a $3.7 billion project. But if you propose to put in a $200,000 lift at one of the ski areas in the national park, you're going through a panel of the committee or, what is currently being suggested with respect to Richardson Ridge, a comprehensive study.

There is no place in Canada that I'm aware of other than our national parks where people have to go through such processes. There's an additional process in place, the development advisory board that recently was formed by Parks Canada, to review appropriateness of developments within the national parks and ensuring...within the national parks context.

I don't disagree with any of these things. I'm quite supportive of them and I believe they're appropriate and necessary for a national park. The unfortunate part is that even with those processes in place, the recent advocacy from some of the environmental groups has been “not one more tree, not one more development”. It's gone from complying with these types of rules and regulations, which are designed to preserve, to zero growth. My fear is if we go to that point, the next natural step will be removal and restoration and limitations on our activities. That is what concerns me most. Our parks are nowhere near the carrying capacity that other national parks in other jurisdictions have faced, and I think with the protection we have in place that can happen.

I want to add one more thing, because I think this is an important aspect of it as well. I've been working there for four years on a volunteer basis, and I've seen a distinct change in the atmosphere in the community, both on the part of users and operators within the park. There is a keen desire to ensure that these places fulfil their mandate; that is, that they're available for people to use but they're preserved for future generations. It's not something that is being regulated or effectively caused by environmental lobbies. It's being done by the people themselves. One of them is this heritage tourism strategy, which is essentially a private initiative, although Parks Canada is also involved, to ensure that people who come to our national parks have a sense of place, that they know exactly where they are, that they're in a national park and they have certain responsibilities and duties as a result.

This movement is growing incredibly strong, and it is dragging, kicking and screaming, the exploiters of the system into line. It seems to me that developing this type of community spirit, this type of momentum, behind a cooperative, positive approach to these issues is far better than trying to regulate it with a stick. I find this a very encouraging thing, and you don't read about this in the paper. What you hear in the paper is that Banff is out of control, and that's unfortunate because there are a lot of positive things going on.

This development advisory board was just implemented in the last year. It reviews every development within the national park, very similar to a municipal planning commission but very effectively. I think it will work and it will do the job right.

What I'm trying to say to you is that there's a lot positive going on. Don't be overwhelmed by what I see as an effective campaign by others to discredit what is happening to serve their own purposes.

I don't want to sound too Alberta reformist, because I'm not. I'm a very good Liberal. I'm not anti-environmental. It's really tough to speak out and say no, listen, this is going too far. But it is. Our parks have been portrayed in the international press and in the national press as being severely damaged, severely strained. In one international report Banff was described as a toilet. I take pride in my national parks and I think all Canadians do, and it's important that the message gets out that they are very positive icons and they deserve to be respected. I don't think we should be pressured into doing things that are not appropriate.

• 1150

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey: Does Mrs. St-Hilaire have any questions?

The Chairman: No.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: I have one observation and then a question that flows from it. The first observation is that I think it is very important for the committee to know from the officials at an appropriate and early moment their response to the suggestion made in both briefs that there is a change of mandate by stealth going on here. My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that the only way to understand the full mandate of the park system is to take all of the pieces of legislation together and read them as a whole. That's why we don't make the preamble to this act all-inclusive, because we've already dealt with it in separate sets of legislation, which remain in place, like the National Parks Act.

So I guess as a committee we would want to know from the officials in a timely manner, as the justice minister would say, exactly their answer to the suggestion that adding the words “and/or restore” somehow radically alters what was going on before, and also with the notion that maintaining ecological integrity as a prerequisite is somehow changing things. We will need to know that from the officials, and I simply put that on the record for our consideration.

My question really has to do with the proposed suggestions you make to amend the preamble, which again is not meant to be an inclusive preamble, as I understand it, because of other, existing legislation. When I read the preamble in the proposed bill I understand that, first of all, under (e) one of the things it is going to do is to commemorate places, people, and events of national historic significance. So the humans are in the act, so to speak, in the preamble. Under paragraph (k), Canadians are to be provided with an opportunity to enjoy Canada's special places so that the tourists, the visitors, are not excluded. In fact they have to be given an opportunity and an infrastructure to do so. Under paragraph (l), which is to maintain the ecological and commemorative integrity, I assume that one reads “commemorative integrity” as having to do with paragraph (e), commemorating places and people. So there are quite a few people, both past and present, in this preamble.

Then I look to your words, and I get a little nervous when I read your suggested (k), the Jasper-suggested (k), which is to provide Canadians with an opportunity to benefit from, use, and enjoy Canada's special places. If I insert the words “benefit from” and then I add your paragraph (m) about the business community and so on, my question comes to this: isn't there a danger that this tilts the preamble towards...I won't say economic exploitation; that's a little too severe. What does “benefit from” mean to you? Does it actually have a very strict economic sense and that's why it is in there? What does “benefit from” mean?

Mr. Roy Everest: To me the words “benefit from and use” bring the national intersection of Canadian Parks Agency legislation completely in line with the National Parks Act. That is our primary goal in this wording. Are we seeking an economic benefit? I think anybody who operates a business within a national park does seek an economic benefit. That is just normal and rational.

• 1155

In fact, our national parks were founded on tourism as their premise. Cornelius Van Horne is as much a founder of our national parks system as is John A. Macdonald or Wilfrid Laurier. The national parks were created as the railways moved throughout Canada in order to, first of all, preserve these areas for future generations, and secondly, allow Canadians and foreign visitors to use and enjoy those national parks.

The primary difference between eastern national parks and western national parks is of course size. In eastern national parks—and I'll use Forillon and Point Pelee as examples—you have national parks that are very small, within square kilometres or 100 square kilometres. But in these eastern national parks you do not require service centres or visitor centres within the actual national parks.

When you get to Jasper, the national park is huge, 10,878 square kilometres. A national park like this that sits astride a major Trans-Canada transportation centre needs a service centre, and a service centre that is very isolated from any other point of human habitation needs a community. The members of that community have to support themselves somehow. They do this by providing services you would normally find in any small community, like shoe repair, veterinary services, and law offices, and they also provide primary services to a visiting public. In so doing, they are fulfilling a national parks mandate.

Mr. John Godfrey: If I accept that, what I want to understand about the proposed changes you're putting forward is this. If we were to make the amendments you suggest, is it possible that would also be a form of change of mandate by stealth? What I mean by that is, does the existing National Parks Act include the words “benefit from” or is this new language?

Would the existing National Parks Act recognize somewhere your (m) and your (n), which is to recognize the role of national park communities, their leaseholders and existing businesses, the secure working environment, and the whole notion of infrastructure? Are those things spelled out in current legislation that would go forward in the National Parks Act, or are you actually adding some new elements here too?

Mr. Roy Everest: The short answer to your question would be yes, no, and no. If I can explain, section 4 of the National Parks Act, which sets forth the mandate of the national parks, states:

4. The National Parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the National Parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

My personal thought on (k) is that this is merely trying to bring forward the same provisions from section 4 of the National Parks Act.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

Mr. Roy Everest: In fact, if section 4 were repeated in its entirety in the new wording of the Canadian Parks Agency legislation, we would be ecstatic.

Mr. John Godfrey: And the other two?

Mr. Roy Everest: In regard to infrastructure, there is nothing regarding infrastructure in any legislation. Current national parks policy does refer to infrastructure in saying that it is in the best interests to keep infrastructure running. I'm afraid I don't know where that is; the national parks policy is extensive. There is no written legislation regarding infrastructure.

Regarding paragraph (m), I think that's almost a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that we've proposed. In a certain sense, we feel like David Ben-Gurion, that we're fighting for our right to exist within the national parks.

Mr. John Godfrey: Goodness. It's certainly the week to be thinking about it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Roy Everest: What we're trying to do is receive some sort of recognition that national park communities have a role, a place, within the national parks. We're afraid of the shift we're seeing within the operating legislation. Quite frankly, we do believe this is an amendment through stealth.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

Mr. Roy Everest: Even though it's not a radical shift in policy, I'd call it a subtle shift. We don't feel that (m) has an ambush by stealth. We feel the existing amendments to the Canadian Parks Agency are an ambush by stealth.

• 1200

We're quite open in our goal, and that's to seek protection for national parks communities. We would like that recognized through a legislative amendment.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

Mr. Brad Pierce: I'm not supportive of amendments by stealth on either side of the equation. I would like to see the balance. Unfortunately, the way it's currently drafted, there isn't the balance.

Mr. John Godfrey: So this is a reaction to that?

Mr. Brad Pierce: Somewhat.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

The Chairman: Could I intervene briefly?

I don't know that an act, which is public and deposited in the House, is a document by stealth. I think we're just stretching it there. It's extremely public.

Mr. Brad Pierce: No, I—

Mr. John Godfrey: Those are my provocative words, which I withdraw.

Mr. Brad Pierce: My difficulty is in the concepts that are proposed by the language that exists there, such as the restoration concept—

The Chairman: Yes, I understand.

Mr. Brad Pierce: —and the precondition, which basically requires a person who wants to carry on an activity to prove the negative. I don't think any legislation in this country currently requires anyone to do that. Those concepts have not been fairly debated with respect to the national parks and their mandate.

What we have here is a piece of legislation to restructure Parks Canada as an agency. It's not designed to have any effect on or change to the mandate of four national parks. If we're going to do that, if we are going to address these issues of restoration and preconditions to use, then those should be done in the context of amendments to the National Parks Act.

I'm not saying this language does that, because it's in the inoperative part of the legislation. But because it is passed by the House, it will be used by groups to say it does have legislative sanction. Frankly, the news reporter at the Globe and Mail or the Calgary Herald or the Banff Crag & Canyon is not going to make the distinction.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): My question—I will keep it simple and brief—should give a perfect illustration of your democratic counter-proposals, if I may call them.

I simply do not understand. A few days ago, we heard witnesses tell us very clearly that they were concerned precisely because those principles were contained only in the preamble and they should be included in the body of the legislation.

Your presentation, which I appreciate and understand, is based on the premise that what is in the preamble is also in the body. So I just don't understand. Could someone explain to me how you feel that the preamble is the expression of a goal?

[English]

Mr. Brad Pierce: That's right; it is an expression of an objective. But that objective is to be expressed, in my view, in the National Parks Act, because it sets the direction of what our national parks are all about. It shouldn't be set in a piece of legislation that is basically to restructure a department of the government into a special agency of the government.

My concern is simply that those concepts that are introduced in this preamble don't currently exist in the National Parks Act or the regulations and have not been reviewed, debated, or understood by the different constituencies that may be affected by a shift in direction in the mandate or in the objective.

The understanding of most people with respect to this legislation is simply as I've stated: it's to create the agency from a department and it's not changing any objectives for a national park. If we were to put those things on the table fairly, I think we could have a reasoned debate. What I'm saying is I don't think it's in this place that that should happen.

• 1205

There's one more danger, because we've been subjected to it for so long, and that is this. I'll use the example of ecological integrity becoming the first priority. That change to the legislation in the National Parks Act occurred in 1988, and what it said is that ecological integrity shall be the first priority in making development decisions within our national parks. The way that has been interpreted now is that ecological integrity is the first priority in every decision affecting our national parks. That's not what the legislation says, but if you go to any of these public consultations or have a debate in the public domain, it is the first priority for everything. And that's not what the act says.

My fear with respect to introducing this unnecessary language in the preamble to this legislation is that it will be used the same way, to be interpreted as a change of mandate, when in fact that was never the intent, it was never debated, and the people who would be affected by it never had an opportunity to discuss it. The next thing you know it will be as if it's been legislated, just by virtue of public perception, by the way it's presented to people. I don't have the resources to counter that, quite frankly.

That's perhaps the subtle difference and why I'm concerned.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Everest, I missed the start, and I apologize, but who are you representing? Is it the community of Jasper or is it Jasper National Park?

Mr. Roy Everest: The primary body I represent is Jasper Tourism and Commerce, which represents the business community and is also open to residents of Jasper National Park to join. My appearance here is with the support of the Jasper Townsite Committee, which is an advisory body to the superintendent of Jasper National Park. My representation, therefore, I deem to be on behalf of the town of Jasper, but not Jasper National Park.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you.

I have three short questions, all part of one larger one, and maybe you can answer them all. Based on your presentation, I took it you were suggesting that perhaps Jasper National Park should be enjoying the benefit of the revenues it collects, in order to maintain and develop the park accordingly. So if it's collecting $11 million or if it's contributing $11 million, it should be receiving $11 million back in order to maintain and develop the park accordingly, rather than having it distributed to smaller parks, whether they be in eastern or central Canada.

Next was the proportionate representation that my Reform colleague brought forward. You had suggested that there should be proportionate representation based on the amount of commitment in dollars that Jasper has. I would ask, what about the smaller parks or the smaller areas? If that were the case, then in fact there would be no representation. If you went into proportionate representation, many things in central and eastern Canada would only be represented because of the size. I ask you to maybe wrestle with that.

Lastly, you had chatted about—and I'm not using your words—the levels of bureaucracy you have to go through, or the levels of authorization you have to go through, to make some changes, by-laws, that most communities would take for granted or be able to expedite in a very timely fashion. It takes your community a considerable amount longer. Certainly that's not unique, because it's the same in my riding. The Niagara Escarpment travels through the heart of my riding, and many communities that are located within the escarpment, as well as many residents in those that border the escarpment, try to have things changed, what they perceive as positive things for themselves or for the micro level. It takes them many steps to allow those changes to take place, because on the macro level, which is what the secretary of parks is dealing with, it's what is best for Canada as a whole and national parks as a whole, rather than the micro, which is what is best for Jasper.

• 1210

So I'm a proponent of having those levels of security in there so that in fact, in the escarpment case or in Jasper's case, we can have a body or a government that oversees what is in the best interests of the national interest, rather than just simply the best interests of Jasper as a business community.

So I guess I would ask you to start with the revenues point.

Mr. Roy Everest: First, regarding the receiving of benefit from the revenues, I had previously given the figure of $11 million, or about 20% of all revenues collected. I think it's tremendously unrealistic for us to try to keep all of that. We understand that Jasper and Banff have been and will likely always be the economic engines that drive Canada's national parks system. We are the parks that are visited the most. We are the parks that have the town sites and the infrastructure. We will be the parks that are always sought after locally, nationally, and internationally. These represent unique items in the world heritage, and I think it's unrealistic for us to think we can keep all money generated there.

But right now, we keep such a small fraction of that money. I think all we're really after is the recognition that the infrastructure within these national parks must be supported and that sufficient funds must be brought forward in order to support that infrastructure so that these parks can continue to be outstanding examples of world—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Do you know what the total is?

Mr. Roy Everest: Is that in terms of the total infrastructure cost?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: What is the parks agency or the heritage department putting in right now?

Mr. Roy Everest: I believe it's.... I do have the figure.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Ballpark it.

Mr. Roy Everest: The entire national parks and national historical sites—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: No, no, Jasper.

Mr. Roy Everest: Jasper? I'm afraid I don't have that information. In fact, we've asked for that information, and our superintendent doesn't seem to have that information.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you. Carry on, sir.

Mr. Roy Everest: So all we're really after is enough to keep the infrastructure, the road system, in top-notch condition so that visitors from the United States, Egypt, Great Britain, and Germany see that Jasper, Banff, and our western national parks have good roads and good facilities.

Second, I'm not sure if I've answered your first question, but I'll move on to the proportion of representation. You'll have to forgive me because the concept of representation on some sort of national body isn't new, but I haven't really prepared anything for it today because it isn't directly mentioned within the legislation. Normally, a federal body or a board would consist of something between nine and 22 members. I think Jasper would be ecstatic to have a single voice at a high level.

So in terms of the proportion of representation, we're certainly not seeking to monopolize any committee. We're certainly not seeking to railroad the national parks into a—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I wasn't suggesting that. The number that was thrown out by Mr. Pankiw was three or four. I suggested that of a committee of nine, if Jasper had three or four—

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, I meant one from Jasper and one from Banff.

Mr. Roy Everest: I think that's a detail that would have to be resolved over a long period of time. In short, what we're after is rather than having no power at the complete bottom of the organizational structure and being only able to give recommendations regarding our community, we would like to have some real power and to fit somewhere into the organizational chart. I'd suggest that this member should be an elected member.

Third, you mentioned levels of bureaucracies.

• 1215

Mr. Paul Bonwick: “Controls” perhaps would be a better word.

Mr. Roy Everest: The levels of controls. I completely agree with you. There are certain things the town of Jasper should not control. It is not within the national interest for Jasper to control these things. A change in the town boundaries certainly would be one and a change in the use of land would be another.

However, there are certain other things of a purely municipal bent that I think are properly considered within the town of Jasper. As a model, I use the town of Banff, which is the only community among the seven national parks communities....

Just quickly, there's Banff, Jasper, Lake Louise, Field, Waterton, Waskesiu, and Wasagaming. Four of those are very small communities of around 300 people. Field has about 300. Waterton has a year-round population of about 50 and a seasonal high of about 300. Wasagaming has about 500. Waskesiu has about 300. Those vary a little bit, but that's just going from memory. The three primary communities are Banff, which is about 7,600, Jasper, at about 4,500, and Lake Louise, at around 1,900.

Within these towns, Banff is the only one that has ever gone to a form of municipal government. The Banff model, as I'll refer to it, has done exactly that. Certain things that a normal Alberta municipality would be able to do can be done by the town of Banff. Certain other things that would require provincial input or that would be in the interest of, in this case, the federal government, have been retained by the federal government.

However, the Banff model has only been applied to Banff. No other national parks community has had it applied. We are, in effect, wards of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I have a short, simple question. I wonder if either of these gentlemen could tell us if there is representation from Parks Canada on the Canadian Tourism Commission. The second question is, should there be Canadian Tourism Commission representation on the parks agency, in your opinion?

Mr. Roy Everest: I could briefly speak to that. I would say that would be an excellent idea. National Parks and Historic Sites has monopolized all of the important tourism attractions within Canada. We have to face it: tourism is one of the businesses of Parks Canada. They have the sites and the locations. I think that's the one angle of Parks Canada that they have never really explored. I think it would be an excellent idea.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Has anyone suggested that so far?

Mr. Roy Everest: To my knowledge, no.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Brad Pierce: If I could just follow on to that, I know you didn't have the numbers when the previous gentleman asked, but I think there have been some studies done by the Alberta tourism department that showed that those parks generate something like $750 million in economic activity every year. Those would be the four mountain parks: Banff, Jasper, Yoho, and Kootenay. If you take the tax revenue that's derived by both provincial and federal agencies, you would find those parks are by far net financial contributors in a huge way to the general revenue fund.

What the parks agency legislation does is allow a large portion of those funds to be retained—it would be a significant portion, and more than what's currently allowed—by Parks Canada for its own appropriations.

But also, this would be for the creation of new parks. This is where I think we have to go. If we want to create new parks—I think that's everyone's desire—we have to find the resources to do that. I think this agency is setting up the right mechanisms by which those new parks can be created. You have such huge economic engines in the four national mountain parks that you're going to be able to create those parks. If the vision of a Yellowstone to Yukon is ever going to come to fruition, you're going to need those resources.

The Chairman: I wanted to refer to the question in the preamble because it has come up in both your submissions as one very key part of the objections you seem to have to the act. It's not the body of the act so much as the preamble. It's on the basis that the preamble should reflect exactly the type of provision there is in the National Parks Act. I would suggest that obviously the preamble is trying to reflect current evolution and opinion.

• 1220

I was going to ask you something, Mr. Everest, following Mr. Godfrey's question. You said that, theoretically, a national park may be presented without any human occupation or presence within that national park. I appreciate that this is using a sort of deliberate exaggeration to prove a point.

At the same time, if I look at the preamble of Bill C-29, apart from the references Mr. Godfrey stated, it says there:

Whereas the Government of Canada wishes to establish an Agency to provide quality services to visitors and the Canadian public through alternative human resource and administrative regimes and financial authorities;

So obviously, one of the aims is to provide quality services to visitors and the Canadian public in relation to the parks. Obviously, if quality services are going to be provided, of course it will require infrastructure and whatever there is. I don't follow that this preamble obliterates the possibility that there will be a human presence or human occupation or visitors to the park.

Mr. Roy Everest: Sir, when I was extremely young, I had a wonderful opportunity to visit and experience all of the maritime national parks, Quebec national parks, and even national parks that were not yet in existence, specifically Grasslands National Park. I did this by walking about two blocks from my home in Jasper. At the time, Parks Canada had trailers where they would take and present slices of national parks. These mobile trailers were designed to expand the national parks past the existing boundaries of those national parks and take the parks to the people, if you will. It was an excellent idea.

My concern is that you don't necessarily have to be in a national park to have it presented to you. This is specifically on your first point. And perhaps it is somewhat of an exaggeration to say that, theoretically, national parks don't require a human presence to be presented, but with the media available today, quite frankly, they don't.

In most of our northern national parks, such as Auyuittuq in Nunavut, on average, they receive fewer than a thousand visitors, of whom most are Parks Canada staff. Yet through multimedia presentation tools, they are presented to far more than those people who actually visit there.

In light of certain other reactions that we've seen, I think it is still a worry to have a parks preamble or a national interest section that says it will be presented rather than used and enjoyed. National parks, especially the western national parks, have always had activities associated with them throughout their history, such as horseback riding and fishing. The list goes on and on.

We've seen that list be severely curtailed. Certain uses, of course, I completely agree with. Hunting went in about the 1930s. That was the first use curtailed. Good riddance to it. However, we've seen other uses being curtailed recently, such as dogsledding, as Brad Pierce mentioned. Fishing is being severely curtailed. Horseback riding is currently under study. All of these activities that are associated with national parks are under attack, even whitewater rafting.

National parks have a history of being used, and I think it's extremely important to recognize that presentation isn't the only aspect of a national park.

The Chairman: Well, no, I don't think the preamble says it's any aspect. The preamble is very wide.

• 1225

But to come back to the whole question of ecological integrity that both of you raised several times, the point being that Bill C-29 possibly doesn't reflect the National Parks Act, I would suggest to you that maybe the National Parks Act is far more insistent on ecological integrity than the preamble in Bill C-29.

If I read the National Parks Act, first of all, it's not a preamble; it's part of the act itself. When you refer to ecological integrity under section 5, it says:

Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority when considering park zoning and visitor use in a management plan.

This being an operative section of the National Parks Act, surely it is far more demanding on the government and the parks agency, or whoever is responsible for the park, than the preamble in Bill C-29. I don't know why there is this fright over C-29, when there's a reference there“to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of national parks” in merely a preamble, when it is definitely the priority or responsibility of the parks people in regard to the National Parks Act as an operative section.

Mr. Brad Pierce: I don't deny that a large part of the preamble is satisfactory to me. I don't object to what is currently in the National Parks Act. My objections are very specific, and they are very specific in that I object to the introduction of some new concept presented by the language in this preamble. That concept is this question of restoration, which implies that somehow the ecological integrity of our national parks particularly—and I think this is directed at the four mountain parks—has somehow been impaired. I don't think there's scientific evidence to that effect, so I have a concern about it. It introduces and opens up the whole can of worms of restoration, removal of facilities, and closure and limitation of activities, and I don't think that is appropriate.

The second issue, my second very specific concern, is this introduction of the notion that maintenance of ecological integrity shall be a precondition to any use. I guess my fear with respect to that is that if you take what is a very common principle in environmental circles, the precautionary principle—if you don't know, don't do anything—you're going to require people to prove the negative in order to be able to use the parks.

I guess it's the introduction of these new concepts by the preamble, concepts that are not currently in the National Parks Act.... Section 4, the priority section you just quoted doesn't say “restore”, it doesn't say “precondition” or “prerequisite to use”. If we start introducing those concepts, they will take on a life of their own when they haven't been fairly debated, when they haven't been fairly reviewed or presented to the people who will be affected by them. Most people understand this legislation to simply be creating the agency, not creating a change in the direction of the national parks. If we're going to do that, I'm open to debating it, but it should be open and it should be fairly debated by all constituents.

The Chairman: Well, Mr. Pierce, I stand to be corrected, but it seems to me that when you say the first priority when considering parks zoning and visitor use is a prerequisite...if it is a first priority, then obviously it's a prerequisite. We can play on words, but it seems to me if you have a first priority, a second priority, a third priority, this comes as number one, so it obviously comes first. That's what the act says.

To say that ecological integrity hasn't been debated...? The Banff-Bow Valley study was a massive document. It had consultation bodies. It was in the press. We can agree or disagree with it, but to say it's never been discussed and to say the concept is brand new.... I agree with you that “restore” is new, but it seems to me that to maintain—you have to restore if the maintenance falls down. If everything is in a pristine state, you don't need to restore. Surely the provision in the act doesn't imply that we have to restore if there's no restoration to be done but in case there might be. Let's assume no damage has been caused, but there may be damage.

• 1230

Look what happened in Spain with a mine flooding into a national park. We're building a Cheviot mine next to Jasper right now. I would like to ask Mr. Everest if he is satisfied with that or if he agrees with it. What happens if that mine should spill into the park? Shouldn't we restore? This is what's happening today; we are just seeing it today. This is a wonderful national park that is sadly being invaded by 30 kilometres of toxic effluence from a Canadian mine. We would have to restore.

In case we have to restore, we are putting the provision there. I don't see anything threatening in that at all. If it stays pristine then we don't restore.

Mr. Brad Pierce: I don't have any problem with the concept generally. Unfortunately, I am a lawyer and I do think the way it's presented in the National Parks Act.... I don't claim to give you any opinion on it, but the prerequisite in my view will require someone to prove the negative. It will be used to require someone to prove the negative, which is an impossible thing to do. I think it is a new concept. I do believe “restore” is a new concept.

Don't get me wrong; I don't object to the concepts being discussed and debated, but they'd better do it in an open forum, fairly presented so that everyone has the opportunity to present their case. My problem is that it's absolutely unnecessary in this legislation. You don't need to introduce that language to create the parks agency, so why do it? My concern is how it will be presented. It will be presented as a fait accompli in terms of the acceptance of those concepts. I think before we do that we have to debate it.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any other questions from the members?

If not, I would like to thank Mr. Pierce and Mr. Everest very sincerely. I think you have made your point of view very clear to us. We understand what it is and we appreciate your viewpoint and the discussions that took place today. Thank you very much for coming.

Mr. Brad Pierce: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will get a revised brief to each committee member.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I have a couple of concerns that I would just like to bring to the committee, if I may. Is that okay?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mark Muise: I guess where this started for me was when we had the first nations peoples here last week, who really have been ignored. Their letters to the department have not been answered. They are not consulted when it comes time to enact whatever might be debated, and they're not taken into consideration.

I received a letter from Nellie Cournoyea, who is the chair of the IRC. She made comments to my representations in the House about the Tuktut Nogait. I asked her why she did not make these points to me before. She said she wasn't told this was coming forward.

The Chairman: This is Bill C-38?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, that's correct.

She mentioned to me last evening that she had not been invited to come to the—-

The Chairman: In the discussions we had before, certainly in the discussions in which I was involved about inviting witnesses, there was no intention not to invite her. It was very much the contrary. I'll ask the clerk to reply to you.

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Muise, I think it's perhaps a misunderstanding on my part.

• 1235

There is a consulting firm, a consultant, from the Northwest Territories who has been in touch with me many times. I believed this person represented not only Ms. Cournoyea but the other five signatories, and so I dealt with her and I gave her the tentative date we were planning on scheduling. I did not deal directly with Ms. Cournoyea under the assumption—and that's always a mistake and we should not do that—that this person represented Ms. Cournoyea. But now that you've brought it up in the meeting, I will obviously phone Ms. Cournoyea personally.

The Chairman: Let me make it clear that in fact the Secretary of State for Parks purposely told me that Ms. Cournoyea had some objections and had some representations to make and that we should go out of our way to make sure she appeared here if she wanted to, and if she preferred a television conference, a link-up by telephone, to do that, but if she wanted to be here, by all means find time for her. So definitely there is no intention at all of stopping her from coming; it's very much the contrary.

Mr. Mark Muise: In the past you've always been very fair, Mr. Chairman, and I didn't mean to imply that you weren't in this instance. But I have to say that it gives the impression to witnesses and to someone such as myself that maybe things are done in a way that doesn't lead people to have the opportunity to present themselves.

So I think it's very important that we hear witnesses, give them adequate time when we invite them so that they can make their representations and prepare to come here, and maybe answer correspondence that comes from concerned parties. I'd like to leave that for the record.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, we want this to be an open forum.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

The Chairman: If people have representations to make on Bill C-38 or Bill C-29, I leave it to the committee, first of all. We publish a list of the people to be invited. We ask every party to suggest their own people. If you have suggestions to make, please do. We don't want to ram legislation through without hearing from the people who are concerned about it. Ms. Cournoyea or anybody else is welcome here. So if you have any suggestions....

We have no intention to try to...and if there's any impression that this is the case, well, I ask you to change it because it isn't so.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I've always sensed that fairness. I believe that now. I guess it's maybe the newness on my part. I'm understanding the process a lot better, but I may have missed a few points. I thank you for your interventions.

The Chairman: All right.

The meeting is adjourned.