Bill S-5 (Historical)

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada)

This enactment amends the Canada National Parks Act to establish Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada.

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

moved that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House today to express my unconditional support for Bill S-5, the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.

Bill S-5 proposes to protect a vast swath of land in Canada's north, nearly 5,000 square kilometres, an area almost the size of Prince Edward Island.

In August 2012, the Prime Minister travelled to the Northwest Territories to join aboriginal leaders in announcing the establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve as Canada's 44th national park. The bill would deliver on work started by this government in 2008 and on the commitment of the Prime Minister to protect this area for future generations.

Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is a beautiful landscape located in the southwestern region of the Northwest Territories along the Yukon border. This is within the settlement area of the Sahtu Dene and Métis who have travelled, hunted and trapped there. Given its remote location, the land remains largely wild in nature.

The park would protect habitat for a variety of species such as mountain woodland caribou, grizzly bears, Dall sheep, mountain goats and trumpeter swans. During the short summers, the valleys are covered in wildflowers and insects buzz over the thick carpet of moss, grasses and shrubs. It is truly a site to see.

Given its timeless beauty and more importantly how the lands and waters and abundant wildlife have sustained aboriginal people for generations, it is no wonder that our aboriginal peoples have such a deep connection to these lands. An important spiritual place to local Dene people is the mountain that towers above the Moose Ponds on the upper South Nahanni River. The name of the proposed park reserve, Nááts’ihch’oh, celebrates this bond. The word means “pointed like a porcupine quill”, aptly describing the shape of the mountain. The mountain is highly significant to the Sahtu Dene and Métis for its spiritual endowment.

Creating this national park reserve would serve the national interest in several ways. It would preserve a breathtaking landscape for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. It would create land use certainty that can facilitate investment and economic development for aboriginal and northern Canadians.

Establishing Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve completes this government's work to significantly expand Nahanni National Park Reserve, which shares its northern boundary with Nááts’ihch’oh, thereby conserving a significant proportion of the South Nahanni River watershed. In short, with the expansion of Nahanni and the creation of Nááts’ihch’oh, this government will have created the third largest national park complex in this country.

These actions build on Canada's strong tradition of international leadership in conservation. Bill S-5 also supports Canada's national conservation plan, which was recently announced by the Prime Minister. The plan contributes to Canada's long-term prosperity by taking concrete action to conserve our nation's lands and waters, restore ecosystems, and connect Canadians to nature.

The creation of Nááts’ihch’oh also supports Canada's northern strategy, a plan to assign the north and northerners a larger role in our country's democracy.

To fully appreciate the importance of the proposed national park reserve, one must first understand the significance of the northern strategy. For generations, Canadians considered the north the land of the future. That future is upon us now. The time has come for Canadians to fully embrace the north and realize the tremendous potential and opportunities it offers. The northern strategy envisions healthy, sustainable lands and vibrant communities of people.

The northern strategy prompts action in four areas: protecting our northern environmental heritage, promoting economic and social development, improving northern governance, and exercising Canada's sovereignty over the north. Since the strategy was launched in 2007, significant progress has been made on each of these important areas. The progress is shown through the conservation of environmentally sensitive waters and lands, such as we are doing with Nááts’ihch’oh.

Additionally, employment and infrastructure in the community of Tulita will support the prosperity of the area with new housing, skills development and training. This is partly because nearly every action taken under the strategy is designed to act as a catalyst. Improvements in governance, for instance, tend to spark economic and social development.

Today, more northern lands are protected from development than at any point in our country's great history.

With the creation of Nááts’ihch’oh, more than 10% of Canada's three northern territories would be protected. It is important to know that is an area about the size of Newfoundland and Labrador. This would ensure the protection of some of our nation's most spectacular scenery, the preservation of unique cultural heritage areas and the provision of unparalleled visitor opportunities to explore these lands and cultures.

There are more job and training opportunities than ever before, creating more economic prosperity in our northern lands, and northerners have a greater say in the decisions that affect them most. The legislation before us would further push this process along and inspire direct progress in three of the northern strategy's four policy areas.

The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would contribute significantly to environmental protection. With the addition of Nááts’ihch’oh, more than 86% of the South Nahanni watershed would be protected. The combined Nahanni–Nááts’ihch’oh park complex would include a habitat that would protect up to 600 grizzly bears, which is nine times greater than the number of grizzly bears protected within Banff, Canada's first national park. What a legacy for Canada's future generations.

The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh would promote social and economic development, another component of the northern strategy. Nature lovers and adventurers from across the country and around the world appreciate the remarkable beauty of Canada's north, and many can be expected to travel to Nááts’ihch’oh to experience its spectacular landscapes, flora and fauna. The park headquarters and visitor centre would be established in the community of Tulita, generating job and training opportunities and the economic benefits of new infrastructure projects.

Establishing the park reserve would also trigger direct infusions of resources. For example, during the first five years of the park's operation, Parks Canada would invest nearly $3 million to build offices, a visitor centre and staff accommodation. It would have an annual operating budget of $1.2 million. For a town of only a few hundred people, this is a significant investment that would open the door to a number of additional opportunities. Northerners would also have an active role in managing the new park reserve, which would help build capacity and strengthen northern governance.

An impact and benefit plan, negotiated by Parks Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Métis who live near Nááts’ihch’oh would provide for the collaborative management of the national park reserve by a committee composed of representatives of Parks Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Métis, fulfilling requirements of the Sahtu Dene and Métis land claim agreement. As a result, northerners would have greater control over their lands, an essential component of sound governance.

Parks Canada partners with aboriginal peoples to establish, manage and protect lands and ensure that ancient traditions and harvesting customs such as hunting, trapping and fishing, continue. In fact, formal agreements with aboriginal peoples contribute to the effective stewardship of nearly 70% of all Parks Canada's lands.

Parks Canada maintains effective relationships with more than 130 aboriginal groups across Canada through a broad spectrum of mechanisms and agreements. Establishing the Nááts’ihch’oh park reserve would further this modern, progressive and inclusive vision of the north, particularly to southern and international audiences. It would protect our culture and natural heritage and help sustain communities and develop leaders in our north. There can be absolutely no doubt that rapid change is under way in the north.

The important question that we must ask ourselves is this. How can we influence the course of change to benefit northerners and Canadians for both the present and future generations?

The bill is a concrete example of the action we are taking within the northern strategy, which proposes a responsible approach to development that balances environmental protection with social and economic development, empowers northerners and exercises Canada's sovereignty in the north.

Protecting large representative natural regions while encouraging a diverse economy in the north is a crucial part of this strategy and is the centrepiece of the creation of this new national park reserve. Doing so creates jobs and raises awareness of the spectacular yet fragile ecosystems and the age-old cultures that comprise the rich heritage of our north. In these places, there is a palpable sense of harmony. Everything around us is connected and we are connected to everything around us.

I encourage members to bear this connection in mind as we discuss the proposed legislation. There is enormous potential that can be achieved through this bill, such as protecting the environment, creating jobs, and ensuring that our north stays beautiful for future generations.

Although thousands of kilometres separate us from Nááts’ihch’oh, we must recognize its considerable value and power as a national park reserve. I urge everyone to join me in support of the legislation now before us.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his presentation on the Nááts’ihch’oh new park reserve in the Northwest Territories.

I have stood here on a number of occasions talking about the Conservatives' plans for parks expansions. I think of the Nahanni park expansion in 2007, which we supported after having written confirmation from the minister at the time, Mr. Prentice, that there would be investments made into the communities and into capital to promote the park and provide visitor centres and things that would provide an impetus to tourism and the development of our communities. Seven years have passed, and nothing in those promises has been built in the Dehcho region, in Fort Simpson, or in Nahanni Butte.

Therefore, as we go forward with another national park reserve, of course my question to the parliamentary secretary is this: that guarantees does he have that we are not going to wait another seven years to see a proper visitor centre and the facilities required to operate a park and make it a valuable economic opportunity for the people of the Sahtu region? What kind of guarantees and programs have been established within the department to ensure that this work goes ahead in a timely fashion?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the north for that very important question, because I think we both share a common goal of developing the north, bringing employment, and opening up these parks to Canadians to participate in.

As I said in my speech, we have certain financial commitments that we are standing by. In this area of the world, there are challenges when we build certain infrastructures, but Parks Canada and our government are committed to following through on these agreements.

When we build on these conversations, we employ a group process; in other words, we bring in first nations, parks officials, and stakeholders to make sure that our investments are going to benefit the local community. It is all about working with the community to conserve and restore, as well as to connect Canadians to this wonderful part of our country and our heritage.

I am hoping that the NDP and the Liberals will work with us enthusiastically to make this park and reserve a reality.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the words that Canadians fear most are, “Hello. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.” Similarly, with members of the government, the words that they fear most are, “Hello. I'm from the opposition and I'm here to help you.”

Of course we support the creation of this park and we look forward to working with the hon. member.

I do want to note that this is a reserve as opposed to a park. It is a reserve for a park, which is a different order than simply the creation of a park. That is largely dependent on the status of negotiations with various aboriginal interests. I am interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to the status of negotiations with the various aboriginal communities affected.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that very important question, because the status of negotiations with first nations certainly does take precedence over creation of the park. That is why we are working very carefully with first nations, the Sahtu Dene and Métis in the area, and everyone involved.

In terms of the long-term goals, as my colleague said quite jokingly, the comment people fear is “I'm from the government and I'm here to help” and “I'm from the opposition and I'm here to help.” I am actually looking forward to comments from my colleague from the environment committee, because this is something all of us share as a long-term goal. As I said in my speech, the future is now. The north is our future, and it is important that we work with the communities in the areas to make sure we develop it and also protect its heritage.

One extremely important thing is the different species at risk in the area that would be protected through this piece of legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues all through the House, but I recognize too the importance of working with first nations as we move forward in this process.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. member, but I am a little puzzled by the response to the question from my colleague from Northwest Territories.

He raised questions about undertakings to deliver on jobs and development within the expanded Nahanni park right into the watershed. My understanding is that an agreement was actually signed two years ago between the government and the Sahtu Dene and Métis. It was then that the undertaking was made to build infrastructure in the watershed part of the park that would provide specific jobs to the first nations and Métis people in the area.

The question, then, relates to yet another undertaking from two years ago. What is planned in the budget update for this fall to actually deliver on those promises?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question, because it is a very specific question and it is very important that people know.

Parks Canada is moving forward with plans for the Nááts’ihch’oh park office, a visitor centre, a warehouse, a garage for the park operations, and housing for park staff in Tulita. I did mention this in my speech.

The Tulita District Benefit Corporation was established by the Sahtu Dene and Métis to coordinate their economic opportunities and the benefits of the new park.

I appreciate the opportunity to expand on my earlier comments. Local tradespeople would be employed in the construction and maintenance of this infrastructure in the community of Tulita. Capital funds to be committed to these construction projects will amount to $2.8 million. In exchange, Parks Canada will have a long-term lease as a tenant in the office complex. The organization chart for the park includes nine staff positions—six full-time and 3.5 part-time—and two student positions. It is anticipated that the majority of these positions, including two trainee positions, will be filled by Sahtu Dene and Métis from the Tulita district. These employees, as agreed in the IBP, would be hired preferentially among the Sahtu Dene and Métis of the Tulita district.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill is obviously favoured by people in the Northwest Territories, especially people who live in the Nahanni park area. I have heard many wonderful things about this particular area and the great work that has been done by many of the aboriginal governments in that particular area.

Whenever we build reserves or expand reserves like this in different regions of the country, obviously we do it to protect our natural habitat and our natural environment, but in many cases there is also an expectation by aboriginal groups for some real social and economic development as a result of it. So far, this is not happening in this particular region.

I am wondering if the government is really serious about investing here to ensure that development happens for the people who live there.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question, because that is exactly why we are moving this initiative forward in the way that we are. We are strongly committed to fulfill what we have discussed here this afternoon.

My previous answer discussed the details of what has been arranged. Of course, when economic development is brought in and people are given jobs, it certainly helps the social aspects of the community and encourages further development.

I think not only our government but also our opposition colleagues, all of us in this House, are committed to moving forward on this matter. I do hope that I can count on the support of members in this House to move this legislation forward.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-5, which is a bill to create Nááts’ihch’oh national park in the Sahtu Region of the Northwest Territories.

This region is centred around the Mackenzie River and stretches towards the Yukon boundary with an incredibly beautiful mountain range and the magnificent wilderness that is the Northwest Territories.

I represent people who, when polled, have some of the highest regard for the environment among all the people in Canada. We really have that respect, and respect for the idea of national parks is strong in the Northwest Territories.

We have seen the creation of many national parks over many years throughout our territory and we understand the inherent issues that surround the development of national parks. Our first nations people have experience in dealing with park bureaucracies and understand how national parks and their rules and regulations sometimes intervene in their traditional lifestyle.

The Sahtu Dene have agreed to this park and to a comprehensive and co-operative management system that goes along with it. We look forward to seeing more details of that in committee so that we can understand how their interests will be protected going forward.

I am very pleased to see this beautiful area protected; however, I am not happy that the Conservatives chose the smallest size possible for the park.

Through the process of developing this park, there were three options that were set out for the park.

Option one was a total area of 6,450 square kilometres. It was developed to best protect conservation values while providing an open area around the existing mineral interests.

Option two was a total area of 5,770 square kilometres, which diminished the achievement of conservation goals and allowed more mineral potential to be available.

Option three, and this is the one chosen by the Conservatives, was the smallest proposal, with a total area of 4,840 square kilometres. It took advantage of the mineral potential within the proposed park reserve while providing some protection to key values.

The Conservatives made this choice despite option one, the option of 6,450 square kilometres, getting the overwhelming support, at 92.3%, of those who indicated a preference during public consultations on the proposed park.

The people of the north said that they were fine with the park, but they wanted to make sure that the park works for the resources and values that are being included within it. This has not been done completely with this park. That is not surprising, because many on that side of the House see national parks as a waste of land and resources.

For example, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham has publicly stated that Parks Canada staff are not the best stewards of Canada's land. When a national park was proposed for part of his riding, he responded, “We're going to have to do whatever we can to prevent it.” He quickly changed his tune, however, when his bosses here in Ottawa told him that he should be in favour of the Rouge national urban park. It is a small park, but it is a park that absolutely has value for urban residents of Canada.

The belief that parks are a waste of land and resources is just plain wrong. National parks create long-term sustainable jobs and they create opportunities in tourism and support industries. These jobs and economic opportunities last forever, unlike those in the resource sector. Extraction only lasts a few years, and we are very familiar with that. Sometimes they leave a legacy of destruction that lasts for eternity, as was the case with the Giant Mine, so we have to be very careful with how we deal with land.

We know that in the Northwest Territories. We understand what goes on with development and we understand why we have to preserve land and why it is important that land be put aside.

Recently I had the opportunity to travel to Yukon to Kluane National Park and Reserve. Yukon's Parks Canada is worked with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations to create a visitor centre at the Da Ku Cultural Centre in Haines Junction. This centre and the numerous businesses in Haines Junction all exist because of Kluane National Park and Reserve. Like other national parks, Kluane has created jobs and economic opportunities that are long lasting and environmentally sound.

However, many times it seems to me that to the Conservatives, tourism jobs and economic opportunities that surround that type of activity are of little value because it puts money not in the hands of big corporations, but in the hands of little people, local people, workers and those who want to see a future for the preservation of our natural beauty and such like. Is this the reason why the Conservatives chose the smallest size possible for the park against the recommendations of all the people who chose to make those recommendations in the public consultations?

I want to talk about the tourism industry, because it is what really will give the economic opportunities to the Sahtu region by putting aside 4,850 square kilometres of land. Tourism opportunities provide great potentials for our future. They provide local jobs and local businesses, as with Kluane, and Kluane has been done in a very good fashion. It took years to get there. It took many difficult negotiations with first nations so they would achieve benefits, but now they are. We do not want to make those mistakes with any new national park. We want to move to the good side as quickly as possible.

The tourist industry in Canada, though, creates more than $84 billion in economic activity, more than $17 billion in export revenue, nearly $10 billion in federal revenue and employs more than 600,000 Canadians. Tourism's contribution to the GDP is worth more than agriculture, fisheries and forestry combined. Despite these figures, the Conservatives have turned their backs on Canadian tourist operators.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has ranked the lack of support for our tourism industry as one of the top ten barriers to the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. Canada, during the reign of the Conservatives, has cut its tourism marketing budget by 20% over the last nine years. Instead of expanding the budget as it should be with inflation and all the rest, we have seen a cutback of 20%. It has forced the Canadian Tourism Commission to abandon advertising initiatives in lucrative markets like the United States. The Canadian Tourism Commission's core funding has declined from nearly $100 million in 2001.

The Conservatives continued lack of leadership in promoting tourism at home and abroad is needlessly damaging what was once a good news story for the Canadian economy. A quick look at other countries shows just how little the Conservatives support the tourism industry. Those results are showing in the incredible drop that we have seen in international tourism visitations to Canada.

These are countries where the money has been put in tourism: Ireland spent $211 million a year in promoting its tourism, which is a 14% increase in the same time; Mexico, $153 million, 4% increase; Australia, $147 million, 30% increase; Canada $72 million, down 10% over that same period. By the time when we factor in inflation, we see a massive decrease in the support for the tourism industry.

There is an old saying, and this is one that the neoliberals like, “A rising tide raises all boats”. What we see in the tourism industry is a falling tide which has becalmed the industry and left a lot of tourism boats stranded on the shore.

When we talk about increasing national parks, we want to talk about expanding tourism.

What operator is going to create a new market in Canada for a new product when the Conservative government has decimated our tourism market. It has refused to put the dollars into it that can return, promote and increase this very important market. It is very content to see the tide go out and the boats sit on the sandy floor of the bay.

The Conservatives changed the tourism tax rebates, so only those on packaged tours could apply for a tax refund, rather than the old system where any visitor to Canada could get their GST refunded. This change has really hit small tourism businesses, but has provided an unfair advantage to large tourism operations.

What is going to happen in the Northwest Territories? We have small tourism operators. Everybody in the tourism industry starts out small. The average time to make a tourism business profitable is between 10 and 14 years. Someone has to invest. They have to create the market. They have to create the product. They have to make it work. That is what is going to have to happen in Nááts’ihch’oh. That is where we are going to have to put the investment to get the tourism industry to work there.

We need the support of the federal government on the federal programs that increase the volume of tourists to Canada. That is a fundamental.

I have included this in my speech because we want to see benefits from taking 4,850 square kilometres of land and creating a national park, which is a great idea for the people of Canada, and can be a great idea for the people of the North, but we need to promote tourism.

However, there is another story about tourism with the government and how little it supports it, and that is its treatment of Parks Canada. In budget 2012, Parks Canada had 638 positions eliminated. Many of the positions in national parks in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon were lost as well.

When we are trying to build a tourism industry based upon natural beauty, national parks, we see that the cutbacks affect that throughout the system.

Budget 2012 cut Parks Canada's budget by almost 7.1%. The cuts hit parks and historic sites nationwide. Nova Scotia's Fortress of Louisbourg, touted by the Canadian Tourism Association as a signature designation, is facing the loss of 120 jobs. Banff National Park, another prime tourist destination, is losing 40 jobs.

Winter services have been eliminated and visitors are left to guide themselves at historic sites.

We have even cut out cross-country ski trail building. One activity that could be guaranteed in national parks throughout northern Canada was cross-country ski events. We do not have that anymore.

Budget 2014 included $391 million, allocated over five years, allowing the agency to improve roads, bridges and dams located in Canada's national parks and historic canals. However, the 2014 budget specifies that only $1 million is allocated for this fiscal year and $4 million for 2015-16, with the rest to be handed out in 2016 and onward, after the next election.

It is estimated by Parks Canada reports the cost could be as much as $2.7 billion to complete all deferred infrastructure programs.

We are happy we see an agreement between the Sahtu Dene and Metis and the current government to create a national park reserve: Nááts’ihch’oh. This is a good thing. However, it cannot stand by itself. Efforts have to be made to create a situation where, what the parliamentary secretary talked about, the economic opportunities, the jobs, the local economy that can come out of a national park can flourish, and that is linked to tourism.

Without the effort put into that, without the effort put into Parks Canada to provide it with the resources to promote tourism, without the effort put in by the Canadian Tourism Commission and without the resources to advertise to promote Canada worldwide, we will not see an increase in our tourism, and we will continue this downward trend. This beautiful country, with so much to offer to so many people around the world, is not getting its due right now.

We are spending all kinds of money promoting the oil and gas industry, trying to do the work for multinational corporations that should do their own work because they are making massive profits from these resources. What do we do for the tourism people? What do we do for those little people who are trying to set up small businesses? What do we do to set up the opportunities for people to work in this field? We are cutting back on the resources that are available to promote this very important sector.

As I have pointed out, agriculture, forestry and fishing combined do not match up to the impact that tourism has on our economy. We want to be successful in the Northwest Territories. We want our people to have an opportunity to take advantage of the natural beauty of our country and the land. We want our first nations, which have gone into agreements, to invest in business and opportunities in the tourism sector. That is the real growth potential for the national parks in the Northwest Territories.

However, the government has shown that it is not interested in that. Perhaps after the next election, we will have another government; it looks likely. At that time, we perhaps will see the true potential of the Canadian national parks system, including all those in the Northwest Territories. They will have an opportunity to grow, so the people in that region, who have given up so much to provide these beautiful national parks to Canada for eternity, will have an opportunity to achieve a prosperous lifestyle from doing that. It will be hard. There is nothing easy about the tourism industry. It takes time, effort and resources, but it also takes the active participation of the Government of Canada in promoting Canada as a destination.

We cannot back off from that. We cannot say that it is not important, that we will leave it to the private sector. That does not work. This is our country. We have to make the best opportunities for it. We cannot simply continue to cut the opportunities that exist there to show the world what we have here.

I appreciate this. I really hope the Conservatives this time follow up on this, and have an active plan to get the facilities in place. With the Nahanni National Park Reserve expansion, we were promised seven years ago that these facilities would be built, including a proper visitors centre in Fort Simpson. The Nahanni National Park Reserve is a world heritage site. It is famous around the world. Yet there is absolutely nothing in Fort Simpson to sell somebody on getting in a plane and flying all the way out there to look at it. There is nothing there. There is nothing that has been put in place yet, after seven years. That is a shocking record. That is a record of ineffective behaviour. That is a record of not understanding how to get along with first nations to accomplish this. This is where that sits in the Nahanni National Park Reserve expansion plans.

I trust there is someone on the other side who might be listening to this and understanding that there is work to be done here, that this is not all just clapping our hands for the wonderful things that the government has created. The government has not created anything. It has taken land and put it aside. Now we need the work to go in to making it something.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to disagree with my colleague's saying the government has not created something.

We have actually worked very closely with the Sahtu Dene and Métis in the Northwest Territories. They are going to benefit from lasting economic, cultural, and social benefits thanks to the agreement our government signed in 2012.

If we look at it, the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve translates into a sixfold expansion of the protected area in the Nahanni region by our government.

This creation has been years in the making, involving consultations with communities, aboriginal groups, industry, and the Government of the Northwest Territories.

My colleague talked about tourism, and I would like to point out that this is extremely important. Parks Canada would be working with our Sahtu partners in the development of aboriginal-operated visitor experience opportunities. I would point him toward sections 19.4 and 19.5 of the impact and benefit plan, which commit Parks Canada to explore opportunities such as river guiding, ecotourism service, and the in-park accommodation with the Sahtu businesses. I would remind the member that it is over $2.8 million that we would be investing in this.

In the context of this bill, and since I did point out those different sections, would the hon. member not agree that expansion of the Nahanni and the establishment of the Nááts’ihch’oh and the agreement with the Sahtu would help promote tourism in this region?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, developing tourism is a difficult and expensive business. I have been involved with tourism development in the Northwest Territories. I have chaired a tourism advisory board for 10 years.

I know what I am talking about when it comes to the need to develop. It takes time. This is not something that is done overnight.

If we want an operator to start working on this, we need to show that there is going to be a market. We need to first develop a product, then find the market for the product, and promote that product. That all takes time and resources.

While the government says that these are going to develop overnight, they are not. We need to see a commitment on the part of the federal government and Parks Canada to work with any operator in the future to make this happen. That is the reality of the situation.

I truly hope that Nááts’ihch’oh becomes a focal point for tourism, but many years of investment and effort are required to make that happen.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a significant advantage over me in this debate, and I had a significant advantage over him in the debate earlier this morning, because I live close to the Rouge Park and he lives in some proximity to Nááts’ihch’oh. He has more familiarity with the park than I do.

The member made some reference to the drawing of the boundaries. I note that the drawing of the boundaries seems to exclude a couple of mines. Within the bill itself—and I do not know whether or not this is a usual thing in a park bill—it says the minister may enter into leases or licences for mining access roads, and the minister may issue, amend, renew, suspend, or cancel licences for the use of water for the purposes of mining access roads.

I would be interested in whether that is at all usual, in the member's experience, and whether or not any public consultation occurred around that, given his proximity to the park itself.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the issue of the access road was one that raised a number of flags at the time. More than that, the big issue has been the reduction in size of the park. The larger size of the park, 6,450 square kilometres, was developed to best protect conservation values. The range of the animals that the park would be home to and the types of situations that would be involved with watersheds were best served by the 6,450 square kilometre size.

The 4,840 square kilometre size has opened up opportunities for other things to happen. Whether they happen or not, the park has not been given the surety that the 6,450 square kilometre size would have done.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I concur entirely with the concern of the member for Northwest Territories about tourism in this country. Having seen Canada drop from 7th most visited country in 2002 to 18th in 2011, one can draw some lines.

One of the concerning things is that the largest market for tourists to Canada is visitors from the United States, but under the current administration, all tourism advertising in the U.S. market has been cancelled. The only product we are advertising in the United States is bitumen.

I would like to ask him about the Nááts’ihch’oh. He hinted at his concern about the smaller boundaries. We know that the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and many other conservationists on the ground believe these smaller boundaries will not be adequate to protect the South Nahanni. I want to ask if he shares those concerns.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, those concerns were shared among 92% of the people who had opinions on it in the public process. As a citizen and representative of the people of the Northwest Territories, I too have those concerns. When we set up a park, we set it up to provide protection for certain values, whether those values are wildlife or the watershed. Those are things that we do.

I live next to Wood Buffalo National Park, an area that is considerably larger than this park. It is the largest park in Canada, the largest area in North America with no seismic lines. It is the largest area where there is a complete biosphere. It is an amazing area, and we have paid the price for that. In my community, I would love to see more tourism related to it because, of course, that is a big part of the landscape of northern Alberta and southern N.W.T.

When we take out land, we must provide other answers for people. It is a two-way street. The choices have been made. This is what the Conservative government has put forward. We can live with this, but is it the best solution? The people who looked at it in detail said no.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the Northwest Territories for his excellent speech.

If our leader were in the House, he would agree that the hon. member's speech reflected our noble values and desire to protect the earth and keep it healthy. Those values are extremely important for the future of our national parks, which are often located in areas where there is less tourism than elsewhere and where we want to protect the flora and fauna.

For example, I am thinking about Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve on Quebec's north shore, where the remnants of the last ice age are being protected. These parks exist for good reason, particularly so that areas are properly developed.

I know that the hon. member spoke about tourism, but could he explain the socio-economic importance of this park?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it really remains to be seen. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, there are agreements that have been made about certain staffing and certain things are going to go in place in Tulita, a town of 400 people. Those will certainly help that small community with those parks personnel.

However, what have I seen in the years that I have lived next to a national park? The number of personnel in the park has gone down under the Liberals. It has gone down under the Conservatives. We have seen that this has not been the panacea that has been laid out for us, because consistent cutbacks over the years have changed that relationship.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to debate another park bill. This seems to be park day on the Hill. I am hopefully seeking from colleagues and from you, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to split my time with the member for Labrador in the event that she does arrive.

In the meanwhile, I want to indicate our preliminary support for the bill. This is in effect an extension of the Nahanni park—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Because we are at second reading in the second rotation of this debate, we require unanimous consent for the member if he is going to split his time with another member. Does the member have unanimous consent to split his time with the member for Labrador?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is unanimous consent.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to my colleagues. I am sure that members will be much more enlightened and informed by the comments the member for Labrador will give in this particular debate.

As we know, this is an extension of Nahanni park. The original Nahanni park was created by then Prime Minister Trudeau. We in the Liberal Party could hardly be against any park that originated with a prime minister named Trudeau. We are actually hoping that there will be a second prime minister named Trudeau, but that is up to the will of the people.

We are concerned about a couple of things. The park is good in its conception. We have some concerns about the way the boundaries were determined. Unlike the Rouge park we were debating this morning, there are actually boundaries this time. The Rouge park we were debating this morning has no boundaries except three small parcels of land in Markham. That is one significant difference.

A second significant difference is that this park commits itself to the provisions of the Canada National Parks Act, which is a high level of ecological integrity, whereas the debate this morning had to do with what a new commitment for an urban park would be in terms of ecological integrity. I would make those two notes.

I take note of the fact that when there was a canvassing as to whether this should be a park or a reserve, in 2010, the government entered into some consultations. Over 70% of the 1,600 people they consulted with wanted the entire South Nahanni watershed protected as a park. That was a clearly expressed will. When that was not going to occur, 65 people commented on options one, two, and three. Option one was the largest parcel. Sixty of the 65 people supported the largest option. Only three people supported the second option, which was significantly smaller, and only two people supported the option that is in front of us today. Therefore, of the 1,600 residents, stakeholders, and aboriginal folks who were consulted, only two people thought this was the best configuration possible for this particular park. It is a strange situation to be in to have only two people, of those consulted, actually agree that this is the best possible option.

There were four options: the entire watershed; option one, which was a larger concept; option two, which was a smaller concept; and, option three, which was quite clearly the smallest concept.

If we saw the actual configuration, it is divided into two pieces. One has to leave the one piece, go south into the original part of the park, and then go back into the other piece. There is no connection between the two parcels being put forward in this bill. It seems to me that this is a fundamental issue, because between the two parcels, the smaller parcel and the larger parcel, is a tungsten mine or a couple of tungsten mines. It may well be that the government decided to write the mines out of the park to facilitate these mines. I do not know.

It was not mentioned in the hon. parliamentary secretary's speech why the government chose the least palatable option for the people most affected. I hope that will be explained better in question period.

I am sorry. I do not mean question period. I do not expect anything from question period. I have very low expectations of question period, and they seem to be met each and every day.

I hope that in committee there might be some explanation forthcoming as to why this is a very small piece, relative to what the actual concern was. It may have to do, as I say, with the tungsten mines. There is no question that tungsten is a strategic asset. It is an asset that is largely controlled by countries other than Canada. Nevertheless, it is an issue.

As I raised earlier, there is a mining road that runs through the smaller portion of the park. Interestingly, the minister reserves for herself the right to license that road and to assign that license. She also reserves the right to take, in effect, water from the park and make it available to the mines. Again, these are questions to which I do not have answers, but it is in the legislation, and it does create a certain element of questioning.

It also raises the interesting question about consultation. If we have consultation and seek consent, social license, from the stakeholders, why would we actually go against the wishes of the 1,600 people who were consulted? It seems to be a somewhat superficial level of consultation. It is a concern that needs to be raised when we put this before committee.

As a general proposition, I think this is a concept that we in the Liberal Party can support. It is an idea we think needs a bit more examination. There are questions that need to be asked, but we look forward to asking them in committee.

I thank my colleagues for their time and attention, and I look forward to their questions.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of working with my colleague who just finished his speech, as well as with my colleague from the NDP who spoke earlier. You will recognize that I tried to get a question in earlier, but there was not time.

I would just like to comment that had it not been for the lack of co-operation from our NDP partners, we probably could have been in committee already doing some work on some of these important initiatives to protect our environment. Maybe my colleague from the NDP could explain at some future date why we are still not in committee, but that is another matter.

My colleague from the Liberal Party just acknowledged his support for this bill, for which I am thankful. It is important that we continue to support efforts to protect our natural areas.

In response to a comment my NDP colleague made earlier, he gave the impression that we on this side do not want to protect our natural areas. I would just like to point out that since 2006, our government has made a sixfold expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories. It is considered to be one of the most significant conservation achievements of a generation. We have secured almost 4,000 square kilometres of ecologically sensitive private lands. We have added an area nearly twice the size of Vancouver Island to the network of federally protected areas.

I wonder if my colleague from the Liberal Party would disagree with my colleague from the NDP, who just moments ago made some disparaging remarks about the effort on this side of the House to protect our environment and our protected areas through national parks.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me the sensitivity of the government members. If we are not patting them on the back, they feel insulted.

I am going to let the NDP defend the NDP. I have enough trouble defending Liberals.

The hon. member talked about the concept of putting land aside. Well, the Library of Parliament did a pretty good analysis and said that the Conservatives did not take the South Nahanni piece, which is what everyone wanted. It was the whole watershed to the south of 6,450 square kilometre. They did not take the 5,770 square kilometre piece. They opted for the 4,840 square kilometre piece. Basically, the government takes the position that something is better than nothing.

I appreciate the hon. member's sensitivity to any criticism whatsoever, but I would point out that maybe the Conservatives would not be quite so criticized if in fact they funded Environment Canada properly, if they funded Parks Canada properly, and if they actually created some trust among folks.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this whole question of putting aside land for the future for Canadians is not something that started with the Conservative government. Many of the plans for some of these areas have been ongoing for many years. We have been working on parks, like the park on the north shore of Great Slave Lake, for about 25 years. If it happens to come to fruition under any particular government, that will be great.

We have a program in Canada that we continue through successive governments, and I hope it continues. It will continue, I am sure, under a New Democratic government, coming very soon to members' screens.

This is the reality of what we do in Canada. However, we need to make sure that when we take land out of circulation, we provide the proper resources. The effort needs to go into them to ensure that they are useful and significant parts of the local economies in those areas. This is what it is all about.

We could put aside much land. Remember, this is a national park reserve at this point in time. Does my colleague not agree that fundamentally, this program of protecting natural areas is something that is going to be valuable to Canada in the future? There are still many other areas, perhaps in—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. We are out of time for the question.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood will have 30 seconds to respond.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you for your generosity, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that whoever is the next government continues this creation. I anticipate the creation of these parks. However, I also anticipate that it may be a while before NDP governments actually create anything.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in this debate. I thank my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood for sharing his time with me today. He is very generous.

Bill S-5 is really about expanding lands in the Arctic regions of our country. It continues a process that was started more than 10 years ago in this country by the Liberal government, and that is protecting different parts of Canada's north either through designation of national park areas or national park reserves. The Liberal Party has a long history of supporting the creation and expansion of our national park system in every part of the country.

We have a diverse geological environmental landscape, as we know, and we are very proud of that. It is one of the things that we continue to market as a country. In doing so, we also know that the animal species need to be protected and maintained in those areas, along with all of our agricultural species.

The Nahanni National Park Reserve was created in 1976, and I was reading that it was created by the Trudeau government. That would be a very proud legacy for the people in that particular area, as it would have been for many of the other parks that were created.

The Liberal Party has always been committed to the principles of habitat conservation. We must have regions in the Arctic of Canada that are dedicated to protecting and preserving our many species of flora and fauna, along with animal habitat. This particular reserve area, as was noted by others who spoke today, would certainly preserve the grizzly bear population, which has always been a national attraction in this country.

It is also important that we recognize the traditional lands and work in consultation with first nations groups before moving toward any of these particular designations. This is something the aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories, those self-governments in that particular area, have asked for. They have already seen the vision and the need to protect large reserves within and adjacent to their land claim areas to ensure that these lands are there for future generations to provide for those who live around them.

The Nahanni National Park is a great example of where we have seen aboriginal governments play a big role in the development of social and economic activity. We can only hope that the reserve that is now being looked at, the Nááts’ihch’oh reserve, would also some day be able to have those same opportunities.

I am sure there are very few national parks in this country that have mining developments. In the Nahanni National Park there is tungsten mining, all of it really being done in partnership with aboriginal governments. Almost all of the jobs in these mines are taken by aboriginal people and they have a large control over what is happening there, which I am very proud to say is a model that we could be using in a lot of other operations on aboriginal lands, which we do not see today.

I am very fortunate to have a riding where I am seeing the development of the Torngat Mountains National Park in Labrador. It was a process that started a very long time ago, as far back as 1969. It has been going on as long as I have been in the world. It took until 2005 for the park reserve itself to be established. We are now finally getting the agreement and consent of the Labrador Inuit people. We are seeing the vision of the Labrador Inuit people for this reserve land and how they want this national park emerge.

When their land claim agreement was finalized, soon after, in 2008, the Torngat transitioned into full national park status. That transition has taken them in large steps from that day to this, where they are seeing 10,000 square kilometres being developed. In fact, it is the largest national park in Atlantic Canada, and as Labradoreans, we are so proud of this. We are so proud of the unique area of this country that is being preserved in our homeland and being protected.

This year, in the Torngat National Park there were a lot of Inuit people who made the trek back to their original ancestral roots. There were a lot of schoolchildren who visited the park to learn about the environmental habitat of that particular park area, to learn the history of their ancestors. I can only hope that with what we are doing today with the Nááts’ihch’oh park reserve area, one day it will become a park and one day we will see those kinds of activities occurring in that region of the country as well.

I have had the opportunity to visit the Northwest Territories with my colleague in the NDP, who is the member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, when we worked on the committee that was finalizing the land devolution agreement for that area. He is very passionate about what is happening in the Northwest Territories, and he is also very concerned that we do not have large enough areas of reserve in that area being protected. I understand, certainly, his view and his perspective, but I am sure as well he shares the tremendous excitement that exists there right now over the fact that they are able to create this reserve and are able to protect this entire area for future development.

Whenever we have those kinds of national park reserves and then they revert to national parks, there is also an expectation from people in the local area that it is not just an area of land that is protected, but it is also enhanced. It is an area of land that becomes a learning environment for all of us in Canada. It becomes a place where we can attract tourism, where we can attract development and infrastructure that will not damage the natural habitat and landscape but in fact enhance it and enhance the lives of the people who live there, allowing them to have good jobs and to have good programs and services in their area.

Oftentimes when these types of developments are done, they are accompanied with commitments from the federal government, commitments to provide for that learning environment, to provide for that infrastructure. I can only hope that it will happen in this case that people in this area will not just have a reserve area that can only be accessed or used by people who have deep pockets, but it will be a place of cultural learning and experience, a place where we can really promote this country and allow the people, the aboriginal people in particular who have ownership in these regions, to have real prosperity and growth.

I will conclude, but I just want to say I am very pleased to support the creation of this national park reserve. I hope that we can find new ways, great ways, to protect and preserve vital parts of this country for future generations.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech and for taking the time to visit the far north, as I did last summer. It is a wonderful region of Canada, full of natural beauty. It was also interesting to meet the people who live there.

What does my colleague think the bill is lacking? For example, if we are talking about surface area, does she think the bill contains rules that are strong enough to create a real park with an ecosystem approach that will be truly protected, a park that will focus on conserving and developing flora and fauna habitats?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to travel across all of Canada's Arctic regions, including the Northwest Territories. I have not been into every community there, but I have had the opportunity to visit some of the towns and to meet with many different groups and organizations.

I know from living in the north about living in an area that is very much dependent on the natural environment around us to be able to survive socially and economically, but also to contribute to the rest of the country. I know that protecting the lands is a sacred thing because that is the kind of environment that I live in today, and I know that others in the Arctic share that as well. For us, without the protection of lands, without the protection of habitat and our natural environment, we know that we jeopardize the future of generations of our own people not just the rest of the people around us, so we always make a very conscious effort.

I will speak to the Nahanni Butte park, for example. The boundaries there have been expanded probably six times since the park was created, leaving us to believe that there was not appropriate land reservation for the protection of the ecosystem in that particular area. I would say for the government to pay attention to the aboriginal people and the advice they are giving, because when they are talking about expanding the lot of land to protect a certain portion of the ecosystem, I can guarantee that nine times out of ten they are the experts and they know what they are talking about.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question to my colleague. I know she is a very caring person and very passionate in regard to northern Canada.

She made reference to the 1970s when Pierre Elliott Trudeau played a role in the north and expressed a desire that we should be building upon our national parks. I wonder if the member could provide some comment. I find that over the last decade-plus, we have seen much keener interest from the public as a whole in doing more to promote and encourage our national parks system. Could she provide some comment in terms of the perception of Canadians' need to develop parks?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it was former prime minister Trudeau who established the particular original park boundaries in Nahanni Butte. It was done to support the creation and expansion of a national parks system right across Canada.

If I had time, I could tell a story about the importance of protecting ecosystems like this because there are so many examples of where we did not have appropriate protection and where we have seen a decline in animal habitat. In my area we have terrible examples of how those things have happened.

I want to say that there is also room to have good economic and resource development, along with good ecosystem protection and preservation. It is key for governments to strike the balance and key for all of us to ensure we do it in an appropriate and proper way.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this particular bill.

I have had the privilege of living and working in Canada's north. This would provide yet another opportunity for other Canadians to travel to the north and not just learn about the richness of the beauty of the land, the wildlife, and the rushing rivers but also to meet with and get to know the first nations and Métis communities of our north.

I am pleased that the government is finally moving forward with the establishment of this park reserve. I am hopeful that it will soon be an actual national park, not just a park reserve. We shall see.

I am rising in support of Bill S-5, Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act. I understand it will be going to committee. I am hopeful that the government members of the committee will allow for as many people as possible to come forward who would like to speak to the matter.

That would certainly include the first nations and Métis people and other residents of the Northwest Territories, potentially those who think they might benefit from the tourism development, those who are concerned about the fate of grizzly bears and other threatened species and what might be necessary for the government to commit to actually making this happen.

This park reserve, like many, has been a long time in coming. My previous experience with the designation of parks in the north was during my tenure as the assistant deputy minister for renewable resources in Yukon. During that tenure, I had the privilege of working with first nations and Métis peoples in the negotiation of the first nation final agreements, a huge part of which was always the rights and interests of the aboriginal peoples of the north and how they could benefit from the settlement of those claims.

I sat in on many of those negotiations, which included the potential for designation of park boundaries. Among the more contentious issues was what happens when a national park is established. There can be a lot of benefits that come with the creation of a national park or a national park reserve, but it also means that some people might lose out.

In the case of this situation, as the member for Northwest Territories addressed very clearly, there has been some contention about the boundaries for this park and how much land would actually be set aside.

Typical to a lot of these discussions, particularly in the north where resource extraction is only just beginning, there is always the contention about whether or not there are pre-existing rights and interests that have been filed, or whether or not they might be filed in the future.

Clearly that was also part of the discussion about setting the actual boundaries for the setting aside of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

There is also the issue of when the first nations may have rights or have previous rights, and it is always at the table. The Sahtu people had already finalized the first nations final agreement, so a lot of the decisions had already been made about the lands that were allotted to them and what might occur.

It is my understanding that all along, during the course of those negotiations and then also as negotiations continued on the establishment of this park reserve, they wanted to make sure that they might have rights and opportunities continued in this park.

To the credit of past governments, there have been some exceptions made. Certainly there were in Kluane National Park and Reserve. In that agreement they made some exceptions to what had happened normally in national parks.

We can recall in our history that, when Banff National Park and Jasper National Park were created, we basically booted the Métis and first nation peoples out of those parks. In fact, they have become the forgotten peoples. After the park was created, all we had was the heritage photos of when they used to have powwows.

Now, to the credit of the government, there have been arrangements made so that the first nation peoples can actually continue some activities and benefit from the establishment and development of this park.

As has been mentioned, this park, which is to be situated on the northern one-sixth of the South Nahanni River watershed, would cover almost 5,000 square kilometres. As has been mentioned previously, there was a lot of support for a slightly larger park, but I will speak later about why it was a matter of contention.

Most significantly, this park would be situated by and large within the Tulita district of the Sahtu settlement area, and as I mentioned, this area has long been recommended for protection by the Sahtu during the course of the negotiation process. The creation of this national park reserve has long been supported not only by the Sahtu but also by the Dene and the Métis peoples of the Northwest Territories.

In 2012, an impact benefits agreement was entered into between the Government of Canada and the Sahtu, Dene, and the Métis. I am advised that discussions were also held with the Tulita Renewable Resource Council, which I understand was established under that first nation final agreement.

It is important to understand what that agreement signed onto in 2012 provided for. It acknowledged the right to continue the aboriginal harvest. Clearly, that was recognizing the prior existing rights of the aboriginal peoples in that area.

Second, it provides for co-operative management. The agreement was already made, pre-existing the creation of this national park reserve, that whatever would be created would provide for co-operative management between Parks Canada and the first nation and Métis peoples.

Third, under that agreement, the government guaranteed economic opportunities to the signatory communities, including contract work.

Also, there was an undertaking in 2012 to build in the Tulita community a national park office and a tourist reception centre.

As we heard when the member for the Northwest Territories spoke in this place, similar kinds of promises were made when there was the expansion of the Nahanni National Park in 2008, the first year I was elected. As I recall, I was NDP environment critic and was at committee when we discussed that agreement. I am very disappointed to hear that still those undertakings to build those facilities have not occurred. We can only hope that this time around the government will move more expeditiously on delivering on these undertakings.

Finally, under that impact and benefits agreement, there was an undertaking to build housing for the park workers, that those would be built by the local tradespeople, and that it would ensure at least eight local full-time jobs. So here are some very specific undertakings, and we look forward to those being delivered for the benefit of the northern peoples.

When I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment if any of these undertakings had been delivered on two years later, he replied that it is under discussion, or they will, or in other words, in the future. I repeat here again my concern. We are not simply talking about undertakings that might be in accordance with the bill that is before us—in other words, at a future point in time if the bill passes through committee and through this place and is agreed to. The point is that in 2012 the government already committed to take these actions and we have not seen any action yet.

It is clear that we do not have to await the final passage and proclamation of the bill. The government has already committed to those activities. It is clear that on the government side of the House members already committed to the creation of this park, to their credit. However, are they also committed to living up to the commitments they made in 2012? We hope so.

Also apparently under this 2012 agreement, the government committed to $1.2 million annually for an operational budget for the park and $50,000 per year for capital investments in Tulita. I guess the question will be to the government to respond. I look forward to Conservatives informing me following my speech of whether or not they have already begun to deliver some of these dollars. Clearly, if the creation of the park may be imminent, if any of the members in this place have ever spent time or lived and worked in the north, they know that there is a very short construction period and it would be great if we moved more expeditiously on creating those jobs in the north.

One thing is not clear to me, and it may well be under the 2012 agreement. One of the reasons the government members have given for why it is important to create this particular park reserve is that the current government is committed to the protection of threatened species, one of which in this area, apparently, is the grizzly bear. I guess we will all be looking toward future budgets. We know there have been ongoing cuts to the environment department and so there is less federal money there to actually act and protect threatened species.

I look forward to looking to the budget update and the budget next year to see if in fact there will be additional money; particularly, to create jobs in the north, where first nation and Métis people, many of whom are technically trained, work side by side with Canadian wildlife scientists on actually tracking the grizzly, verifying what the population is now and what needs to be done in the future to ensure that we protect this population within the park.

We certainly know from experience with the parks that already exist in Canada—certainly I know this from the parks in Alberta, particularly, in Jasper and Banff—that we are losing our grizzlies because of trains and because of traffic. I personally, so many times, have witnessed, to my chagrin, trucks and cars racing 20 or 30 kilometres above the speed limit where there is wildlife on the roads. Also, we have the problem where wildlife will interact with people who are visiting the parks.

It will be really important that Parks Canada also work very closely with the people of the north on defining the strategy to ensure we can attract tourism and, at the same time, protect these threatened species.

As my colleague the member for Northwest Territories has pointed out in this place, very clearly, very cogently, creation of parks is not a waste of resources. It actually helps to generate wealth for the country. It creates wealth for us because it actually can create tourism jobs.

However, in order to do that, we actually need to invest in and support those who want to enter into that trade; many of those include tour operators. It is not easy to set up those operations. I know from my experience in Yukon that, in many cases, while there was an absolute right for the first nations to participate in some of those outfitting jobs of taking tourists out, they simply did not step up because they did not have the training, and they need encouragement.

I think it is a really important point. I am very concerned that the government is cutting back on tourism dollars. Frankly, I am even more concerned with the cutbacks to Parks Canada.

We hear this over and over again from Canadians and Canadian organizations that watch what is going on in national parks; and it is very serious that we cut the budget in 2012 to Parks Canada by $29 million, over 7% of the budget, eliminating 638 positions.

If we are creating yet more parks where we can say, “I'm the Government of Canada; I created three new parks”, we also have to ensure that what it is doing is ensuring it is continuing to manage properly and protect the parks we already have and the parks of the future.

I just wanted to speak on that issue again, and that goes to the choices that were put before the government and the options of what they set forward.

As the member for the Northwest Territories clarified for us, there were three options presented.

As I understand, these were the options presented to the community considering the park and also to the public, asking what they thought should occur.

As I understand, almost 93% of Canadians who took the time to respond in this consultation process wanted to go with the larger size of the park.

Now, why is that? It is because the information they were provided was that we need that amount of acreage or hectares to actually deliver on the intent of the park. I presume that also includes sufficient habitat for the grizzly, who actually travel long distances and need that much for harvesting and so forth.

I have worked a lot on the protection of watersheds. It is important that we not just set aside the Nahanni Park, but that we also set aside and protect the watershed that serves the Nahanni River so it can continue into the future.

I, too, share with my colleague from the Northwest Territories, and the Canadians who responded, the deep disappointment at the decision of the government, presumably for the protection of mining extraction, to narrow the scope of this park. That is not a sizeable difference, but still there obviously was some kind of a rational reason for setting that size originally.

I share with those who have said that the tourism industry is important to our country. My own province suffers when tourists come to Canada. When the rest of the world was severely suffering in the recession, Europe, the United States and Asia, less people were coming to our national parks. It is important that the federal government, in partnership with the territorial government and with the bordering provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, put in dollars to help promote the northern parks and to encourage people to visit Canada. Our national parks, and the people who look after them, are probably the best emissaries that we have for our Canadian reputation.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech. Her research is excellent. She obviously knows the file well and truly believes in protecting our environment. For that reason, I congratulate her.

There have been so many cuts at Environment Canada and Parks Canada in particular that one has to wonder what possible future these parks can have. We keep hearing from the government side that the creation of this reserve is an economic opportunity, but it sounds like it is more of an economic opportunity for the mining sector than it is for people who try to protect the environment.

With all of the cuts at Parks Canada, does my colleague feel Parks Canada has enough resources to develop this park properly?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a question that all Canadians should ask the government. We need to ensure that the national parks we have in place and the other wilderness protected areas are resourced sufficiently so they can deliver on their incorporated intent.

We already have a serious problem in the existing national parks, where the number of wardens and the jobs they fill have been cut back. We always have this pressure of the increasing commercialization of our national parks.

Given the cuts that I mentioned previously in my speech, I am deeply concerned at our capability to finance the protection of this park, particularly given that it is in a northern location.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood raised the issue of the government's options. The option that it ultimately chose seemed to be the least supported of those that were provided to the government.

When the government is afforded an opportunity to look at improving our national parks system, one has to question why it chose that option as opposed to going for an option that would have added more square miles to our national parks, other areas of our great nation, that no doubt would have benefited tremendously by it, not only from an environmental point of view but from an economic point of view.

Would the member agree that the government might have been a bit premature in the option that it chose?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the issue is premature, because the government has been dragging its heels in setting aside this park. I am glad it is finally bringing it forward.

My concern is this. I have sat through negotiations with respect to setting aside parks, including offshore parks, as a member of parliamentary committees. The government does not seem to recognize the need for a buffer zone. It is my understanding that one of the clear reasons for the larger size was to create a buffer zone between mining activity and the national park.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments, but I want to put a couple of facts on the table, or reiterate them.

Protecting 4,895 square kilometres, Nááts’ihch’oh National Park is larger than 29 of Parks Canada's 43 other national parks. Only 14 parks are larger. It protects 70% of the South Nahanni River watershed that lies within the Sahtu Settlement Area, as well as important wildlife habitat for mountain woodland caribou, grizzly bears, Dall's sheep, mountain goats and Trumpeter swans.

I have heard some concern, which is legitimate, that the money has not been budgeted. However, I want to let the member know that in budget 2010 money was put aside for this park. Knowing that it is fully funded, will the member fully support the park?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled by the update here. I am not sure if in 2010, the government budgeted for the agreement that it was negotiating, which was signed in 2012. That would make sense.

Yes, more land is set aside for wildlife, but there are clear criteria for when we decide to set aside protection of a natural area for wildlife. Scientists know this. They may need to know what size of a range they need, and so forth.

Yes, it is good that some more habitat is set aside, but it is regrettable that the government not only did not listen to the scientists, it did not listen to the Canadian people.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank my colleague for her speech. She brings a great deal of expertise to the House of Commons on parks, the environment and the best way to tackle this issue.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment mentioned that it covers 75% of a watershed. A watershed must be protected in its entirety, and as my colleague was saying, there must be protected areas.

How would my colleague improve this bill in order to protect our parks and recognize them as national treasures?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will defer to my colleagues what should additionally be put in the bill at committee. I will certainly confer with them about how it could be changed.

Frankly, given the fact that there were direct negotiations and discussions with the first nations peoples, because of my experience in that area, I would be reluctant to in any suggest that something be opened up to which they had not agreed. That is why I would encourage the government to have open conversation when the bill goes to committee. In fact, it should probably be travelling to the Sahtu as well and directly talking to the community about whether this satisfies its needs.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of the three options for the park's area, it is unfortunate that the government chose the smallest area.

Could the member speak about the consultation process? Were people satisfied that the smallest option was chosen for the park? Was this proposal in keeping with what these people wanted, or did it come from the government?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in answering the question, I would like to suggest an alternative. Given that the majority of Canadians called for the larger size, perhaps it would be a reasonable compromise that the government commit to increasing the Parks Canada budget and specifically allot dollars to expedite the creation of this park and to market the development of its tourism to make up for the fact that it shortchanged the size of the park.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I am pleased to speak for a few minutes to this important bill, Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act creating the Nááts’ihch’oh national park.

This is a process, and we recognize that the terms and conditions of the constitutionally-protected Sahtu land claim agreement have been met, including the creation of an impact benefit plan and a management committee. However, we have some concerns around the government's commitment to the park, and I will talk a bit about that.

The establishment of these parks on land and marine areas is all about meeting conservation targets, preserving biodiversity and, in this case, helping communities realize the economic and tourism potential that our national parks can provide.

Some of my colleagues have raised concerns about the government's commitment and whether it is carving up parks in Canada in such a way as to facilitate achieving two objectives: one, meet these constitutionally-required negotiations with first nations; and two, continue to allow resource development to go forward unabated.

It was suggested by someone involved in this process that the boundaries of this park were carved out in such a way as to ensure that a mine, almost in the middle of this territory, was kept out of the park and therefore would be allowed to continue to produce. These things are a concern.

As was mentioned by my colleagues, the Sahtu Dene Nation was involved in these negotiations. Three options were put on the table and one of those options was agreed to. While we have not heard a lot of complaint out of that area, questions have been asked as to why the smallest piece, in this case option 3, was chosen?

A few minutes ago my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona asked why the government had not come forward and attached an additional commitment to this project. After a particular period of time, of five years or so, will it participate in discussions around expanding these boundaries? That would certainly give some of us some comfort as it relates to where the government is going with this.

The Parks Canada budget has been cut to a significant degree over the past few years. Budget cuts have led to a 33% staffing cut in science for Parks Canada, as one example. There have been 60 out of 179 positions eliminated. Talk about hampering Parks Canada's ability to carry out its responsibilities.

Infrastructure is in a desperate state. It is being reported constantly that infrastructure in Parks Canada is in serious need of investment, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The government has not shown a willingness to invest in these important parts of Canadiana and Canadian infrastructure. In fact, it has been cutting back. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has been reported as saying that there is a wide and persistent gap between what the government commits to and what it is achieving. When we go into a situation like this, it is important to note what the government is bringing in behind it.

This is a critical piece of territory. It is a large portion of the South Nahanni River watershed. My understanding is that option one, the bigger piece, would have ensured greater protection of that watershed to make sure that the health and well-being of the Nahanni River and the caribou would be adequately maintained. There is some concern that option three did not cut the mustard in terms of guaranteeing that the watershed was going to be protected, and it left out an important breeding ground for the caribou in this area.

My colleague from Northwest Territories knows this area well. He talked in his intervention about tourism. One of the commitments the government makes in negotiating agreements with the first nations community is economic benefits, economic development, and other ways to compensate for the change in the land use in an area like this. Part of that is tourism. As he so clearly stated, given his vast experience working in this area, Canada has done a terrible job promoting areas like this across the country.

The amount of advertising in the United States about tourism opportunities in Canada has basically dried up. The concern, of course, is what the government will do to ensure that those opportunities that are part of this agreement materialize for the first nations. It was indicated that a park had been formed close to seven years ago, and the government still has not followed up with the investments and infrastructure that is required.

That having been said, as I indicated earlier, we have not heard a great deal of concern expressed by people involved in this particular undertaking. However, we are looking forward to a more extensive discussion and to hearing experts at committee so that there may be a fuller discussion to examine what else can be done.

My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona said it well when she said that in terms of making suggestions about what we can do to make this bill better, it is better left to the representatives on the committee and the witnesses that will be called before the committee to make sure that sound recommendations come forward. Members can bet that members on that committee from the official opposition will certainly be in a position to offer helpful advice based on consultations they will have with the first nations communities involved in this particular endeavour.

As my colleagues have also indicated, I will be supporting moving Bill S-5 forward from second reading to committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we started off the day talking about a national park in suburban Toronto. Now we are winding up the day talking about another national park in rural northern territories. It just goes to show that it does not matter where people live in our vast land. They assign a great deal of value to our national parks. There is a growing expectation that the government will look at ways to continue to see our national parks grow. There needs to be a plan for the environment, the economics, and so forth.

I am wondering if my colleague in the New Democratic Party would provide his thoughts on how important it is that the national government have not only legislation for a national park. We have to make sure that we follow through to ensure that these parks mean more than just a piece of legislation, which Canadians expect when the Government of Canada declares that something is a national treasure.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is correct that Canadians are increasingly interested in issues of conservation and the need for biodiversity across our country. They are looking to the government to take steps to ensure that the ecosystem is protected. The government has failed in many respects. An example is the issue of marine protected areas. The government signed onto a UN agreement a couple of years ago committing itself to achieving the UN goal of having 10% of its coastal area protected as marine protected areas by 2020. That is six years away. At this stage, it is under 1%. Unfortunately, the government has not proven itself up to the task of making sure that it follows up on the commitments, whether it be this park, Rouge River park, or whatever it is. More has to be done.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite appropriate that we have this conversation. Over and over again what we have been seeing from the members on the other side is that they only pick and choose what they want to hear so as to put the least amount on the table.

As members can see, based on the speeches in this House today, when it comes to the environment and the parks piece, we have many people on this side of the House who have a lot of experience, whether it is the members for Halifax, Edmonton—Strathcona, or the Northwest Territories. Our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has the experience and proven leadership on environmental issues, because he served as a Quebec minister of the environment for a long period of time. We know that he resigned from cabinet because of the transfer of park lands.

I would ask my colleague to explain how important it is when committees meet that they consider the vital caribou breeding grounds as well as the protection of the Nahanni River.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the experience and commitment to the environment, conservation, and biodiversity in the ecosystem that exists in our caucus. She is absolutely right. I know that my colleagues will bring that experience and knowledge to their work on committee to make sure that those issues with respect to the caribou, the Nahanni River, and the protection of the watershed will be very much part of their deliberations and questions and research as committee members.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to speak to Bill S-5, which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create a reserve called Nááts’ihch’oh.

Parks are obviously very important to Canadians, and you can find them all over the country. Just today, the House has debated two bills on parks: the one we are discussing now, and the one we discussed earlier this morning to create an urban park in the Toronto area. This shows that Canadians are very interested in creating and preserving our parks and reserves in Canada.

When he was Quebec's environment minister, the leader of the New Democratic Party resigned and gave up his limo in order to protect Mont-Orford park. The Liberal government at the time wanted to sell the park—or at least part of it—to private interests. It was a shock and it was unacceptable. The leader of the NDP did the right thing. He protected the park, at the expense of his political career at the provincial level. Fortunately, this meant that we could snag him to come here, so that he could become the next prime minister of Canada. We think that was the right choice. Defending our parks is a fundamental value.

This bill would create a park in the Northwest Territories. The hon. member for the Northwest Territories did a great job of presenting and defending his stance. It is our duty to defend this bill and move forward. However, let us be clear: the bill has some serious flaws. It does not create a park. Rather, it creates two parts of a park. A road through the middle of the park will allow mining interests to continue mining tungsten. It is a rather unique situation, and we find it unfortunate.

This bill complies with the agreements signed in the north, which took more than seven years to negotiate. Thankfully, those negotiations resulted in the bill before us today. However, it is unfortunate that it did not go further. What is the reasoning behind creating a reserve or park if not to protect the fauna and flora? In this case, the government is trying to find a way to develop natural resources instead of creating a park that will protect the caribou and the other species in the area.

The loss of biodiversity in the world is very disturbing. We need to take measures today to ensure that Canada does not lose any more biodiversity, especially since Canada is recognized around the world as a country that believes in protecting the environment. Unfortunately, this bill suggests that the Conservative government seems to have forgotten that Parks Canada's mandate is to preserve the environment, not exploit it.

Naturally, people in the region are interested in the fact that this will create natural wealth and the idea that there may be a multiplier effect on the economy. We see this across Canada: parks have a considerable impact on wealth and tourism. In other areas where Parks Canada has unfortunately had to cut its budget—because of the Conservative government's massive budget cuts—the agency can no longer carry out its mandate or really help spur economic growth.

Here is an example from back home in the Gaspé. Forillon National Park is now closed all winter, period. No services are available. Unfortunately, the current government is not a partner in economic growth. I also want to point out that to get to Forillon National Park, you have to take a plane, the train or a bus.

Unfortunately, the government is not stepping up in that regard either. There is no bus to get there, the railway is in terrible condition, and the train no longer goes there. The government needs to come up with a budget for Parks Canada that makes sense so that the bill before us can have a real and lasting impact.

I would now like to go over some Parks Canada figures. Really, these numbers are pretty scary. As everyone knows, Parks Canada cut 638 jobs in the 2012 fiscal year. Its budget was cut by 7.1%, which is a lot of money.

The Toronto Star reported that Parks Canada has been putting off close to $3 billion in repairs. There is a total of $2.8 billion in deferred work. That means buildings are falling down.

Getting back to Forillon National Park, I hope that the people of the Northwest Territories will look closely at what is happening in other national parks so that they can be prepared for the Conservatives' lack of support for this park. The federal government has more or less abandoned Forillon National Park. The buildings are in poor shape, and all of the expropriated houses in the park are falling down too.

Hon. members will recall that 40 years ago, when the park was created by the federal Liberal government, it found a rather unique way to create the park: it partnered with the province. The province owns the park, and the federal government manages it. Unfortunately, the federal government has abandoned its role as manager. Now, the owner, namely the provincial government, has no regulatory or statutory power to spend money to improve it. The Conservative government has a duty to improve the park, but it is not doing so.

Today, the government wants to create a park in the Northwest Territories. I hope that the people there will take note that the government often is nowhere to be found when it comes time to provide support.

I would like to point out some shortcomings and share the concerns of some experts. This is what Alison Woodley, of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, had to say about the park's creation:

—the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area.

This is the part that I thought particularly interesting: “Bill S-5 falls short of being a significant conservation achievement”. Again, that is from CPAWS, an organization known for its proper management of parks. It has helped the government establish parks and sustain parks in the past, and in this particular case, it has made it clear that the project we have in front of us simply does not measure up.

We need more and more stringent commitments on the part of the government to make sure that this park would fulfill the needs and the obligations that the government negotiated through the various treaties and through the court obligations that were imposed upon it.

Unfortunately, I do not think the government quite understands that when it has an obligation, it is expected to fulfill it with all due support, with all due money and with all due resources that should come to bear on the project. This is not one of those cases. It is the beginning. It is simply a beginning. We are going to have to go an awful lot further to make sure that this project would have long-term success.

Fortunately, the best outcome for this project, for the bill, is that we do adopt it. At least it would go to committee and we would try to improve on it. However, if we adopt it as is, certainly the most beneficial thing would be that when the NDP does form a government, we would be able to improve it so that it is a real park that we can really be proud of.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my esteemed colleague on his speech. It is obvious that he loves his riding.

He spoke about several problems in his riding that are being ignored by the current government. That is also happening in my riding, where there are many parks and reserves. They have financial problems every year. Even Charlevoix, which is a UNESCO biosphere reserve, has seen its revenues decline dramatically.

Today, this region could lose its UNESCO status because it no longer fulfils one of the main criteria, namely co-operation with the community. The federal and provincial governments are important partners in that respect.

This bill is all well and good and quite appealing, but what good is it to create parks if we do not protect and take care of them? These parks do not have the means to promote and protect their land.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because he raised some very important points.

Parks Canada will have to face a number of challenges in order to fulfill its mandate. I will share the figures that were recently published in the Toronto Star.

Operational cuts in the budget for 2012-13 will be in the order of $6 million; in 2013-14, close to $20 million; in 2014-15, almost $30 million. These are permanent cuts to Parks Canada. They are cuts to the direct services that Parks Canada offers to the public. These services are forever eliminated by the Conservative budgets.

We need to make sure that Parks Canada is able to fulfill its mandate effectively. With the cuts that are being imposed on it, we are simply not going to be able to do that. This park needs more support than this bill is going to offer.

It is a good first step, but we need to go an awful lot further.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am somewhat familiar with Nááts'ihch'oh, having been on site when we made the announcement some time ago.

Listening to the debate, I recognize that there is a complete misunderstanding about the level of community support and the things that are required in order to ensure that this park will be the jewel that it very much is. There was obviously a balance that had to be achieved. There were serious negotiations that involved first nations as well as the government of the territory.

These comments are made in a vacuum in this place, but is there an understanding based on actually being there? I do not recognize any of these comments as being valid.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chief Government Whip for the comments. I certainly do not agree with them.

To bring context back to the Northwest Territories, let us quote the former premier of the Northwest Territories, Stephen Kakfwi, who said, “He has taken the heart right out of it. The middle of it is carved out so that mining can happen dead centre in the middle of the proposed national park.”

Let us put something concrete in our discussions here. I think the government whip should have a little more respect for the former premier of the Northwest Territories. He certainly has a lot of problems with the bill that we have in front of us. The Chief Government Whip should have interest in making sure that he takes heed of these comments and offers some amendments to this bill to improve it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the member for Chambly—Borduas. I must inform the member that he will have just three minutes for his speech.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use my three minutes to quickly say that we will support Bill S-5 because it is a step in the right direction. However, as all my colleagues have pointed out this afternoon, the bill has some flaws that we hope can be fixed in committee.

My colleagues have already given some examples, but I want to illustrate these flaws with some examples from my own riding of the government's mismanagement when it comes to reserves, environmental protection and budget allocations for Parks Canada.

The easiest examples would be Fort Chambly and the Fryer dam. I am currently looking into this to see whether the government has any plans. These two properties belong to Parks Canada. Even though Fort Chambly is a historic site from the War of 1812, it did not receive anything at all, because the francophone aspect was completely ignored. Charles de Salaberry went from Chambly all the way to Châteauguay for the Battle of Châteauguay. During the War of 1812, he was the only francophone commander. Despite that, absolutely nothing was received to improve the infrastructure that belongs to Parks Canada. That is a perfect example.

The other example I mentioned is the Fryer dam. In fact, it is a dyke, as the historical society likes to remind me all the time. My predecessor, Phil Edmonston, an NDP MP, worked hard on this file in 1990. This has been dragging on for a long time under Liberal and Conservative governments. On the ground, officials at Parks Canada—which has an office for eastern Quebec in Chambly—and the municipalities are willing to work on improving this infrastructure, but the budgets have been cut.

In the minute I have remaining, I want to provide one last example. As my colleague mentioned just now, we are talking about biospheres. Mont Saint-Hilaire is the first UNESCO-designated biosphere site in Canada. It received its designation in the 1970s. Fortunately, with the participation of the Gault Nature Reserve of McGill University and thanks to the tremendous work done by members of the public, a greenbelt has been secured. That is good for the environment and for the economy because we are protecting our orchards, which are a major tourist draw in the region. If it were not for the public, the university and the volunteers who work at the nature centre, the cuts would be unbearable, as my colleague said.

This is another example of the government's mismanagement when it comes to protecting the environment, protecting tourism in our regions and, most of all, properly equipping the people at Parks Canada so that we can celebrate our heritage. The government says that all these things are its priorities, but unfortunately, the reality on the ground is quite different, especially in Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders today has expired. The hon. member will have time remaining when this matter next returns before the House.

The House resumed from October 2 consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5. I call on all members to support the passage of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act in order to expand Canada's world-class national park system.

In light of the events of yesterday, it is fitting that the first bill in the House of Commons today is about a national park, a place of sanctity and peace that affords all Canadians an opportunity and a location to enjoy wide open spaces in Canada's great outdoors.

The purpose of Bill S-5 is to establish for all time Canada's newest national park and to pass on to future generations an amazing landscape located in the southwest corner of the Northwest Territories. Not only will this area be protected in the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve but it will be available to generations of visitors to explore and to generations of aboriginal people who can continue their traditional ways of life that date back to time immemorial.

This is the 44th time in the history of our country that a conscious decision has been made to protect a nationally significant Canadian landscape for all time. I hope all members of Parliament, all members in the House, will voice their support for the bill to create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

Our government is a global leader in the creation of new national parks in protected areas. Since 2006, our government has added an area twice the size of Vancouver Island to the network of federally protected areas.

The Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve will protect a representative example of the Mackenzie Mountains and wildlife, including mountain caribou, grizzly bears, moose, Dall sheep, and a host of other species, for future generations.

It has been achieved through the hard work of northerners, including the government of the Northwest Territories, the Sahtu Dene, and the Métis, in support of the goals of the national conservation plan to protect, and connect Canadians to, our natural areas, as announced by our Prime Minister.

Bill S-5 will set in law the boundary of Nááts’ihch’oh by amending Schedule 2 of the Canada National Parts Act. The boundary was selected to achieve key conservation gains, including the protection of the upper reaches of the South Nahanni River as well as habitat for caribou, grizzly bears, sheep, and moose while allowing for some development of existing mineral claims and leases for potential future mineral development.

The boundaries of the proposed park reserve are the product of a broad process of collaboration and consultation. Hundreds of individuals shared views on the proposed boundaries. Representatives of aboriginal groups, territorial governments, mining companies, and other federal departments were also consulted and they participated.

The boundary will protect 70% of the South Nahanni River watershed within the Sahtu settlement area while leaving 70% of the area with high mineral potential outside the park. As a result, it will provide for conservation values and a visitor experience without blocking access to significant areas with high mineral potential. Visitors will now be able to paddle the South Nahanni River from the Moose Ponds to Nahanni National Park Reserve within the boundary.

In August 2012, the Prime Minister travelled to the Northwest Territories to join aboriginal leaders in announcing the establishment of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. Since then, at the request of the Sahtu Dene and the Métis, an area of about 20 square kilometres, extending to the south shore of O'Grady Lake, has been added to the park, in part to facilitate visitor access to the park. With the protection of an additional 4,895 square kilometres of lands and waters in Nááts’ihch’oh, our government has effectively expanded the original boundary of Nahanni sevenfold, to the point that it and Nááts’ihch’oh are the third largest national park complex in Canada.

Globally, this is among the most significant national park expansions. In combination with Nahanni National Park Reserve, 86% of the entire South Nahanni River watershed is now protected forever. The boundary for the expanded Nahanni and the newly established Nááts’ihch’oh will include habitat that will protect up to 600 grizzly bears. This is nine times more than the number of grizzly bears protected within Banff National Park, Canada's first national park.

The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has been achieved with the collaboration of the Sahtu Dene and Métis. Two years ago, the Government of Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Métis signed an impact benefit plan that spelled out how the Nááts’ihch’oh would be collaboratively operated and managed. The plan aims to ensure that the national park reserve provides lasting economic, cultural, and social benefits to aboriginal and northern communities and that it drives growth and prosperity without jeopardizing fragile ecosystems and ongoing traditions.

Ongoing employment to operate Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve will include a combination of seasonal and full-time staff. These employees will be hired among the Sahtu Dene and Métis in the Tulita district. This will allow for a positive economic contribution from the government to support sustainable employment for northerners.

Our government has struck an important balance in this region with the dedication of almost 35,000 square kilometres of northern wilderness and wildlife habitat to national park status for all time while continuing to allow access to resources that are important to the regional and national economy. The bill before us would continue to allow the mining industry to use several specific mineral access roads to access their existing mineral claims.

The Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has been achieved with the support of the government of the Northwest Territories. This legislation is being passed less than a year after Canada and the Northwest Territories reached an historic devolution agreement, with the transfer of the administration and control of land and resources to the territorial government. Once it is established, I am confident that both governments will continue to collaborate to ensure that any development on lands outside the park will not have an impact on the national park values we are seeking to protect through Bill S-5.

The Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has received overwhelming support from stakeholder groups, leaders, community members, and local and regional governments in the area. All first nations and Métis who have settled or asserted claims in the area, as well as stakeholder groups, were invited to consultations. Meetings with leaders and community members from several communities in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were also conducted. Of the over 1,600 individuals who participated in the consultation process, over 96% indicated that they supported the creation of this park.

Bill S-5 delivers on our government's commitment in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to protect Canada's rich natural heritage by, in part, completing the work to protect the wilderness lands of the Nááts’ihch’oh by 2015. Plans are also progressing to dedicate two additional national parks that were also mentioned in the throne speech: a new national park on Bathurst Island in Nunavut and a new national park reserve in the Mealy Mountains of Labrador.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Nunavut, who is also the Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for Parks Canada, on her August 2014 announcement that our government has designated and protected the 20,000 square kilometre Nunavut-based national park under the Canada National Parks Act. The minister's statement at the time is worth repeating, and equally applies to Bill S-5. I quote:

Our Government is committed to ensuring our natural heritage and rich biodiversity is protected for all Canadians today and into the future. Canada’s North is home to the world’s most spectacular scenery and pristine wilderness and I’m tremendously pleased to be announcing [the park] will be protected for future generations. This final step, that supports our Government’s National Conservation Plan, marks the completion of years of hard work and dedication of many Northerners.

In closing, Bill S-5 will protect Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve under the Canada National Park Act.

When Parliament first passed this act in 1930, it included a dedication clause that still resonates today. It states:

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

This statement of purpose will apply to Nááts’ihch’oh once Bill S-5 passes.

Over the decades, previous Parliaments have enacted legislation that has left us with the enduring legacy of unimpaired national parks, such as Jasper, Fundy, Prince Edward Island, Grasslands, and Gros Morne. We know these incredible parks are some of our most treasured places that we have visited, or hope to visit some day, so that we can expand our personal understanding of the beauty of our country. This includes one such gift, Kluane National Park, in my home riding of the Yukon Territory. The history of the people who came to settle these areas and the connection that aboriginal and local communities have with the land in these regions are important to us.

The protection of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, with its bears, caribou, Dall sheep, and trumpeter swans, is this Parliament's natural legacy gift to future generations. For generations to come, people will visit and be inspired by the lands of Nááts’ihch’oh. We trust that it will be passed on to successive generations unimpaired.

Please join me, not only in supporting Bill S-5 but in passing this new national park, for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of future generations, and for all Canadians.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking later to indicate NDP support for this bill, but I do have a question for the member. He is probably aware that in 2013, in the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on the ecological integrity of national parks, the commissioner raised some concerns about the state of repair of many national parks.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether the government is prepared to commit the resources and staffing required to make sure that this park can be the best possible park.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. member for her question and her support for this bill. I certainly look forward to hearing her speak later today on this important topic.

The member will know that in the recent budget, our government committed millions of dollars for the upkeep and infrastructure development of our national parks, not only to make them safe but to preserve them for future generations, to make them accessible and enjoyable, to generate visitors, and in turn spur revenue through those visits to our national parks. We have made significant investments in infrastructure development to make sure that all parks across Canada are safe, accessible, and secure locations that welcome visitors to them on every day of every month of every year.

I hope that the NDP will consider those investments, consider the budget implementation we are doing to engage those investments, and will find a way to support us through those budgets so that our national parks are our lasting legacies for years to come.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that throughout Canada, in virtually all regions, we have a great deal of beauty in terms of our natural lands and, in northern Canada, vast amounts of land. We acknowledge how important it is that we look to where we can capitalize on the recognition of our parks. In every region, we have a high demand for not only putting into place national parks, but there are also the concerns that come with that.

My colleague from the New Democratic Party made reference to the importance of resources, which is of critical importance. I know that up north there is a great deal of concern with respect to the whole issue of water management and how that can be dealt with. Our national parks play a role in issues such as that.

I wonder if the member would provide comment regarding how our national parks play a valuable role that goes beyond the preservation and promotion of nature and wilderness, and also contribute to the benefit of our communities across Canada to deal with strategies for water and other natural resources.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, each national park has a park management plan, and they look at all aspects, from wildlife protection and land-based issues to water-based issues.

The member raises a good point. This park is a great example of where we are protecting water headways. The starting points, the headways of these major river systems, often require great protection. In the South Nahanni River country, part of this park will preserve headwaters of some major river systems.

We have dedicated, capable, qualified staff, who work within each of these parks. They develop very comprehensive water management plans, land use management plans, and wildlife management plans. We are very fortunate in our country to have such qualified and capable people working within our national park system, to make sure they are not operating solely as an entity within the national park but within the broader perspective of the communities that surround those parks. This is because of wildlife, transboundary water flowing in and out of national parks, and forest and ecosystems sharing the park both inside and outside of park boundaries.

It is incumbent upon the great staff who work in these national parks to know this, in order to work in a flexible nature with their partners in the surrounding communities and regions, and with their provincial or territorial counterparts.

They do a great job. Our government is more than happy to support them in every way that we can. I am very much looking forward to seeing the expansion of this park, and the continued protection of our waterways, our land, and our wildlife resources.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank my colleague from the Yukon. It is appropriate today to take the opportunity to thank him for his public service. We all know in the House of his work with the RCMP and Correctional Service Canada.

I also want to thank my colleagues in the opposition who are working with us to make parks in Canada a wonderful priority.

As the member for the Yukon, the member knows first-hand that one of the greatest things about our country is our great outdoors. Our Conservative government's record is clear and unprecedented. We have protected land that is two times the size of Vancouver Island. We have created three national wildlife areas, three marine protected areas, two national parks, two national marine conservation areas, and one historic site.

Why it is so important to now establish the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hard-working parliamentary secretary for all of the work that he does. He is obviously keenly aware of the significance, not only of this park but of all of the initiatives that our government has undertaken. He also has the advantage of working with the hard-working Minister of the Environment, who not only understands these issues very well but lives the issues. She was born in Nunavut, with the wild and open spaces, and she has a deep appreciation for what national parks and open spaces bring to Canadians, both from urban and rural settings.

On that note, we have made expansions to this national park. They are timely, and this is an excellent opportunity for us to build on our tremendous record. We are doing this at the exact time that we are opening national parks in large urban areas, as with the Rouge River national park.

We are trying to connect Canadians as part of our national conservation plan, to restore their connection to nature, give them opportunities that they have not had in the past, and to give them spaces to explore. It is perfect for the health of our ecosystem, and our land, wildlife, and water, as some of the members opposite have touched on. It is also important for the people of Canada and the health of Canadians. It is important for the health and well-being of future generations of Canadians, and indeed our country's identity.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary, not only for his question, but for his hard work, and the Minister of the Environment as well.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned my park, which is the park that is closest to home for me, in Scarborough—Rouge River. That is the Rouge River national urban park which is about to be created.

I see a very similar pattern. The community and local people have asked for a larger park, a larger part of the naturally occurring ecosystems to be protected, and the government has suggested a smaller park. That is what happened with the Rouge park, and that is what I am learning is also happening with the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. Over 90% of the public in the area who were consulted requested that a larger land assembly be included in the park, and the final decision put forward by the government is actually the smallest possible area of land to be protected.

Especially considering that it is at the headwaters of the waterways, why is it that the government is putting forth the smallest possible land assembly for this park reserve?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this is a seven-fold expansion, just shy of 5,000 additional square kilometres to the existing park. This is not insignificant.

Of course, there are people who would have liked the park to be larger. However, we had over 1,600 direct consultations, and, of those, 1,600, 96%, were in support of the park plan that we laid out.

We have an obligation as government to ensure that we balance all Canadians' interests in these issues, be they in the urban centre or in rural remote Canada. There are many stakeholders with vested interests in these regions in the country, and we have struck a balance between all the user groups' interests and user groups' needs, which is very important. We need a broad range of support from all Canadians when we undertake these initiatives

While we understand the direct importance of protection of land areas, we have to ensure that we strike that perfect balance with the opportunity for access for other uses. I think we have done that quite well, and I am proud that almost 5,000 square kilometres will be added to the park.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will enthusiastically encourage all fellow members of the House to join me in supporting Bill S-5, the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act. As my colleague from Yukon has reminded the House, this legislation would protect unparalleled wilderness lands in the Northwest Territories, about 5,000 square km, which is an area only a little smaller than the entire province of Prince Edward Island.

In August 2012, I had the honour of travelling with thePrime Minister to Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories to announce the establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. The name of the proposed national park reserve comes from North Slavey, an aboriginal language. The word means “pointed like a porcupine quill” and refers to the shape of Mount Wilson, which is a peak that looms over a series of moose ponds in the proposed reserve, which are the headwaters for the world-famous South Nahanni River. Aboriginal people consider this mountain sacred. They have lived off the surrounding lands for millennia.

The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve completes the ongoing work to significantly expand the Nahanni National Park Reserve and to conserve a significant portion of the South Nahanni River watershed. In short, Canada has expanded the boundary of Nahanni to the point that it is the third-largest national park complex in the country. This expansion, the largest in Canada's history, would build on our country's strong tradition of national parks and our international leadership in conservation.

The boundaries of the proposed park reserve are the product of a broad process of collaboration and consultation. Hundreds of individuals, over a number of years, shared their views on the proposed boundaries. Representatives of aboriginal groups, territorial governments, regional community corporations, mining companies, and other federal departments were also brought into the consultations.

Ultimately, the proposed boundaries would achieve key conservation gains, such as protecting the upper reaches of the South Nahanni River and habitat for woodland caribou and grizzly bear. They would provide for conservation values and visitor experience without blocking access to significant areas with high mineral potential. The proposed boundaries would also ensure that the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would protect nearly 4,900 square kilometres of the Sahtu Dene and Métis settlement area of the Northwest Territories.

The legislation before us would also support Canada's national conservation plan, announced recently by the Prime Minister. The plan proposes to contribute to Canada's long-term prosperity by taking concrete action in three priority areas: conserving our lands and waters, restoring ecosystems, and connecting Canadians to nature. The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would support each one of these three priorities. It would conserve a beautiful landscape located in the southwest corner of the Northwest Territories and, as my friend reminded us, along the Yukon border.

Given its remote location, this land fortunately remains largely unspoiled. The protections afforded through the legislation now before us would ensure that these lands and waters would continue to be enjoyed for many generations to come. The massive expansion of protected areas in this part of Canada would also help preserve a unique ecosystem. With the addition of Nááts’ihch’oh, more than 85% of the South Nahanni watershed would be protected. Today, this region features habitat for mountain woodland caribou, grizzly bear, Dall sheep, mountain goats, and trumpeter swans. During the all-too-short summers, the fields burst into life as wildflowers bloom and insects buzz over a thick carpet of moss, grass, and shrubs.

Creating the new park reserve would mean that more than 10% of Canada's north would be managed as protected areas for the benefit of Canadians, for the benefit of aboriginals, and for the benefit of local communities. In total, the north would have 11 national parks, 6 national wildlife areas, and 16 migratory bird sanctuaries. The total area would include nearly 400,000 square kilometres, an area about the size of Newfoundland and Labrador, which I think is quite a legacy for future generations.

Given its timeless beauty and abundance of flora and fauna, it is no wonder that aboriginal people have long felt a deep connection with this part of their north. A particularly spiritual place to the Sahtu Dene and the Métis people is the mountain that towers above the Moose Ponds on the upper South Nahanni River.

Creating the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would mean these lands would also attract visitors from outside the north. People would come from across Canada, we hope, to see the spectacular landscapes of the upper reaches of the world-famous South Nahanni River. Visitors would also be able to hike, canoe, raft, and climb in the new Nááts’ihch’oh and the recently expanded Nahanni national park reserves.

The establishment of Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve would demonstrate to Canadians that this government understands the importance of protecting wilderness, while continuing to make it accessible for people domestically and from around the world.

The bill would also provide the Minister of the Environment with the powers to permit two pre-existing mineral access roads through a small part of the national park reserve and to enforce the necessary measures to ensure that the environment is protected where required. These road provisions are exactly what Parliament approved in 2009 when it passed legislation to expand Nahanni National Park Reserve sixfold. There is a mineral access route contemplated in the northwestern part of Nahanni that travels north into the new Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, and Bill S-5 would simply extend the minister's powers to permit that part of the road within Nááts’ihch’oh.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has indicated that there are processes now in place, should any development be proposed for lands adjacent to the new national park reserve, so that there will be environmental assessment, including public hearings, under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has stated many times and very clearly that it has a very rigorous system of oversight and practice with regard to the protection of the environment. Even with the proposed park boundary, any adjacent development would be subject to a very thorough review in the context of maintaining and protecting the park.

The bill is, I believe, a concrete example of the action we are taking within the northern strategy, which proposes a responsible approach to development, one that balances environmental protection with social and economic development, one that empowers northerners and exercises Canada's sovereignty in the north. People would have an active role in managing this new national park reserve, which would help build capacity and, at the same time, strengthen northern governance.

I would hope, in closing, that hon. members would join me in supporting Bill S-5, Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

In regard to the importance of creating parks, we have signed the Aichi targets, which require us to increase protected areas. The national conservation plan created by the Conservatives with the participation of the New Democrats is a plan that could go in the right direction but, once again, its implementation has been delayed, and that is unfortunate.

I am especially concerned about the species at risk, as well as the flora and fauna. I was involved in quite a file dealing with the belugas in Cacouna. My colleague said that a number of species, including grizzly bears and Dall sheep, were going to be protected but, in fact, the vast majority of the critical habitat is outside the proposed park. That habitat will therefore not even be protected. How does he explain the fact that on the one hand he says that these species will be protected, but on the other, he has not even included the critical habitat, the vast majority of which is outside the park?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I think that the breadth of the member's original question, before focusing on the protection of flora and fauna, particularly wildlife and all its forms in the new Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, makes it a complicated and very large question.

There is the creation and stewardship of both our traditional national parks and our new national park reserves and marine protected areas on all three coasts in very different parts of the country. There is the new Sable Island National Park Reserve, the proposed Rouge national urban park reserve within the outskirts of the Greater Toronto Area, and of course, Nááts’ihch’oh, which is a remote, still largely unsullied part of our great natural spaces in the north. They face a number of challenges in terms of designing the national park plan for each individual park, such as ensuring that there is reasonable accessibility for visitors and considering highways as well as a variety of civilization infrastructure realities, such as power lines and so forth.

Parks Canada is world renowned. In my travels around the world, in almost every situation when visiting a protected national space abroad, I have heard from the administrators of these parks of their great admiration for the work of Parks Canada.

In regard to the protected species within Nááts’ihch’oh national park, great care has been taken, because Nááts’ihch’oh has a very important part to play in the life and continued existence of the woodland caribou. On the calving grounds, both the Sahtu and Dene people, the Northwest Territories, and wildlife authorities have advised protecting these birthing grounds, and I can assure my colleague that they would be protected under this legislation.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Thornhill. Obviously, as we heard from both his speech and his answers to questions in the House, he has a tremendous amount of knowledge about this park. He has done a tremendous amount of work to get us to this point, and I would like to thank him for that.

The member mentioned early in his speech that he was present in Norman Wells to make the announcement about this, and I was pleased to be able to join him there. Could my hon. colleague talk about what the community atmosphere was like when we were there to do that? What was the reception like and how did the community feel?

These are very important issues to bring to the House of Commons during this debate, because we were there as the announcement was made and we saw the enthusiasm. If the member could share his personal perspective and talk about how the people there felt, I think it would provide some value to this debate.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to travel in the northern reaches of our country with the hon. member for Yukon.

The work to create this additional protected space adjacent to the great Nahanni National Park Reserve has taken many years and extensive consultations with all of the groups that I mentioned in my speech, including the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the regional community corporations, and equally important, the people who have lived on this land for thousands of years, the Sahtu Dene and Métis peoples. In their negotiations, they had a variety of views on exactly what needed to be protected and how it should be protected.

I can assure members of the House that there were many versions of the ultimate map designating exactly what the boundaries of the park would be, including the protected areas, the spiritually relevant areas of the park, and the areas relevant to protecting wildlife and biodiversity, as I mentioned in a previous answer to a colleague on the other side of the House.

At the Prime Minister's announcement in Norman Wells not far from the new park, which still requires infrastructure to be developed to allow easier access, there was great joy and satisfaction that all of the considerations necessary to create a new national park had been recognized in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has chosen the smallest of the options that were available. There is extreme concern, because the government seems to have listened more to the mining industries and to those wanting to develop than to those who are looking at sustainable economic activity in the area.

My colleague spoke about the wildlife and so on a while ago. Given the boundaries around this area, can he guarantee that there will no mineral development along the Little Nahanni River around the boundaries of that park?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer the concerns raised by my colleague in her well-reasoned and thoughtful question.

Sometimes we think only in the context of our great traditional centuries-old national parks and the protections that have continued over the decades, but we must realize that with the creation of any new national park, the Government of Canada and Parks Canada are not the sole decision-makers in these matters. We are in partnership with governments, in this case the Government of the Northwest Territories, with the various communities of the north, and, as my colleague mentioned, with the input of those organizations and companies that this government believes are responsible for helping to build the economic vitality of not just the urban south but of the north.

I salute the ambition of those among us who would make our entire northern lands into one great national park reserve with no development. However, it is the responsibility not only of the Government of Canada but also the people of Canada, the provinces and territories, and local governments to consider exactly the balance between environmental protection of our special places and reasonable social and economic development. The legislation now before us speaks to exactly that balance.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, as other members have done, I would like to convey condolences to the families of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

Today, I am rising to speak to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act with regard to the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada. In an earlier exchange with the member for Yukon, I indicated that New Democrats will be supporting this bill. It is very important to get the bill to committee to review after second reading.

I am going to quote some background information from the legislative summary to put this bill into context:

The bill amends the Canada National Parks Act to establish Nááts’ihch’oh...National Park Reserve of Canada in the Northwest Territories. The park reserve, which measures 4,895 km², is located in the northern one sixth of the South Nahanni River watershed in the Northwest Territories, adjacent to and to the northwest of the existing Nahanni National Park Reserve.

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve is situated entirely in the Tulita District of the Sahtu Settlement Area. It is being established as a park reserve rather than as a park in accordance with the stipulation in the Canada National Parks Act that “[p]ark reserves are established … where an area or a portion of an area proposed for a park is subject to a claim in respect of aboriginal rights that has been accepted for negotiation by the Government of Canada.” It is not until “outstanding Aboriginal claims have been settled and all necessary agreements are reached that provide for the park’s establishment [that] the park reserve is given national park status.”

The South Nahanni River watershed is an important cultural, spiritual and natural area for the First Nations and Métis peoples of the Sahtu Settlement Area, Dehcho Region and eastern Yukon. It is home to several important species, including grizzly bears, woodland caribou, Dall’s sheep and Canada’s northernmost populations of mountain goat and hoary marmot. The Sahtu Dene and Métis peoples of the region have long recommended that the area that will form this park reserve be conserved.

The legislative summary goes on to discuss the path to creating the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada:

The Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve will complete the protection offered by the national parks system to the Greater Nahanni ecosystem. Nahanni National Park Reserve, which is situated in the Dehcho Region, was created in 1972, in large part to prevent the construction of a hydroelectric project at Virginia Falls. Initially the Nahanni park reserve covered about one seventh of the Greater Nahanni ecosystem. At the time, research indicated that, in this area with many competing land uses and with most of the water in the park reserve coming from outside its boundaries, a larger park would better protect the ecological integrity of the ecosystem. In 2009, Nahanni National Park Reserve’s size was increased six-fold within the Dehcho Region.

To expand protection of the greater Nahanni ecosystem into the adjacent Sahtu Settlement Area, in 2007, Parks Canada approached the Sahtu Dene and Métis peoples of the Tulita District. The negotiation process and requirements for creating a new park or park reserve within the Sahtu Settlement Area are defined in chapter 16 of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1993). The purpose of such parks is:

to preserve and protect for future generations representative natural areas of national significance, including the wildlife resources of such areas, and to encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of such areas, while providing for the rights of the participants under this agreement to use such areas for the harvesting of wildlife and plants.

In addition to affirming various traditional rights and uses, the agreement states, “Exploration for and development of minerals shall not be permitted within a national park, except as may be required for construction purposes within the park.”

As part of the process of creating a park reserve under the agreement, an impact benefit plan was required to lay out “the relationship between the Sahtu Dene and Metis and Parks Canada for managing a national park reserve.” A memorandum of understanding for negotiating the impact benefit plan was signed in April 2008.

While a number of competing uses for the land, including outfitting and sport hunting, were proposed for the park reserve, the most contentious issue was mining and mineral exploration.

I will come back to this point in a moment.

I want to comment for a moment on the process, and for this I am referring to Wikipedia, because it had a very succinct description of the process. It says:

Following the announcement, three plans for the park boundaries were proposed. The region is known for its mineral potential, and mining companies were concerned that the park would limit their access to these minerals. The first scenario would have made the park 6,450 square kilometres, protected 94 per cent of the upper watershed of the South Nahanni River, 95 percent of the grizzly bear habitat and 81 percent of the woodland caribou summer habitat, leaving 20 per cent of the overall mineral potential outside of the park's boundaries and potentially available for development. The Government of Canada chose the third option for the final park boundary that leaves 70 per cent of the overall mineral potential outside the park while retaining 70 percent of the grizzly bear habitat and 44 percent of the summer calving grounds of the woodland caribou herd within the park boundary." During negotiations, concerns were raised about the impact that mining the region would have on the South Nahanni watershed. ...

In reviewing these three options, I want to refer to Parks Canada's own consultation process. This was the final consultation report from August 30, 2010.

In that report, one of the things that happened was that participants were asked to indicate what their preference was of the options that had been proposed. Although only three options were presented for choosing a preference, there was actually a fourth option, but only three options were indicated as preferences.

Option number one, which is not the preference that was chosen by the government, had 92.3% of participants indicate that this was the option that they would prefer. Option number two had 4.6%, and option number three had only 3.1%. We can see that participants in the consultation overwhelmingly favoured that first option.

From that final report, I want to refer to some of the findings from the consultations with aboriginal peoples in the Sahtu region.

The report states:

A frequently expressed comment in the Sahtu region consultations was that it does not make sense to have a national park reserve if you also allow mining to exist in the watershed. Participants stated their distrust of the mining industry and the environmental assessments to protect the natural environment concerned, that the impacts of mining would be harmful to the watershed downstream. It was suggested by participants that protecting the water should be a higher priority than obtaining the employment and financial benefits of mining (seen as small benefits). While some participants saw a balance of economic and conservation values as beneficial (e.g. Option 1 was seen to accommodate miners to keep their leases and Sahtu to protect the watershed and animals), many others felt that mining should not be allowed at all in the watershed. It was suggested that the key concern in deciding on the boundary should be the conservation of wildlife and water.

The beauty and importance of the Naats'ihch'oh area was highlighted by many consultation participants in the Sahtu. They stated that the area was very important to peoples of the Sahtu, Dehcho and Kaska (Ross River Dena Council and Liard First Nation, Yukon). One Tulita Elder described the mountain itself (Naats'ihch'oh) as sacred to these peoples; it has been used to teach and to heal. “This area has power...powerful medicine. The area is so powerful that it will heal you...used in the past to heal people before white medicine. For these reasons we don't want to lose this area to development and it should become a park.”

Of course, there were many other pieces of input with regard to the consultation, but that very succinctly sums up what the Sahtu peoples were talking about in terms of preservation of the area.

Further on in the public consultation report, there was an analysis of the proposed options. It states:

...Option 1 was seen as the best way to facilitate maximum protection of the watershed and habitat of the important species, while also accommodating resource potential in the park. A number of the participants who preferred Option 1 qualified this choice by indicating that Option 1 represented the next best approach to protection of the entire South Nahanni River watershed and preferred that mining leases be bought out. They also indicated that if mining activities are allowed in the vicinity of the park reserve in the upper watershed of the South Nahanni River, the most stringent environmental controls and management should be applied.

We can see clearly that the participants in the study preferred option number one. They talked about what needed to be in place in order to preserve this very important area, an area that is important economically, spiritually, and culturally. Part of the concern that the member for Northwest Territories raised when he gave his speech here in the House was that despite the consultations and the preference from people in the region, this was not the option that was selected.

In addition, the member raised some concerns with regard to the funding and resources needed to support the development of this park and to protect its integrity in the longer run, and in this connection I want to refer to the report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development that was tabled in this House in the fall of 2013. This report was on ecological integrity in national parks.

In the introduction of this report, one of the things that the commissioner did was outline the benefits that national parks provide, and these include the following:

...serve as storehouses of biological diversity, including species at risk...; provide vital functions in the ecosystem, such as carbon sequestration, stormwater surge protection, freshwater filtration, and pollination; provide benchmarks for researchers to compare undisturbed ecosystems within national parks against lands outside of national parks that have been subject to human activities; and protect areas so that the present and future generations will have opportunities to connect with nature, appreciate natural heritage, and support its conservation.

In the report from the commissioner, she raised a number of concerns. I am going to focus on the resources for maintaining ecological integrity because that is one of the concerns that has been raised, whether those resources would be available. The commissioner, in paragraph 7.68, found that overall spending on heritage resources conservation decreased by 15% in the 2012-13 fiscal year, compared with the average of the preceding six years, with further reductions planned as part of decisions flowing from the 2012 federal budget. The planned staffing numbers in heritage resources conservation were reduced by 23% in the 2013-14 fiscal year, compared with the average of the previous seven years. More specifically, staffing in the science work stream was reduced by 33% during this period, as 60 of 179 positions were eliminated.

The report also found that the number of positions that are seasonal increased from 37% to almost 60% in 2013-14 fiscal year. This exacerbates the impact of the reduction in the number of positions because seasonal staff work for only part of the year. Further on in that same report where the concerns were being raised, we find that the spending on heritage Canada resources conservation of Parks Canada has recently decreased by 15%, and it goes on to cite some of the same numbers.

However, it states that Parks Canada has not clarified how and by when, with significantly fewer resources, the agency will address the backlog of unfinished work, the emerging threats to ecological integrity, and the decline in the condition of 34% of park ecosystems that it has identified. As a consequence, “there is a significant risk that the Agency could fall further behind in its efforts to maintain or restore ecological integrity in Canada's national parks” system.

Earlier, when I posed a question to the member for Yukon, with regard to whether the government would commit sufficient resources in order to ensure that the ecological integrity of the proposed park reserve would be maintained, the member referenced the budget announcement, and I just want to put some facts on the table.

First, Parks Canada identified aging infrastructure and inadequate levels of funding in maintenance as a key risk for the department in its November 2013 departmental performance report. The departmental performance report also showed that over $17 million in approved funding for heritage resources conservation and $22 million in townsite and throughway infrastructure funding was allowed to lapse in the 2012-13 period.

When we were talking about the budget, the member was correct when he indicated that the budget announced $391 million over five years to deal with crumbling buildings, roads, and dams. However, what he did not indicate was that, first, the amount would not cover the backlog, but more importantly, because the money is being phased in over five years, in 2014 only $1 million would be spent, in 2015 $4 million would be spent, and the bulk of the money, $386 million, would be spent after the next federal election.

We have been seeing these kinds of smoke-and-mirrors budget announcements in any number of areas. I am the aboriginal affairs critic for the New Democrats. We saw an education announcement that indicated that most of the money would flow after the next federal election.

Therefore, this is another one of those cases of “Trust me; the cheque is in the mail”. It is important to note that money is not a slam dunk. If the government really does want to support the development of this park reserve, if it really does want to support the peoples of the region, it needs to indicate, very clearly, its intention to ensure that money will flow.

Again, New Democrats are wholeheartedly behind the creation of this park reserve. We are wholeheartedly in support of the bill moving forward and making sure it happens expeditiously. Members will know that this has been a long time in the making and it is well past the time that we do this preservation.

However, a number of other organizations have also raised concerns and I will refer to the CPAWS Northwest Territories analysis. In its analysis, it indicated:

Protecting the South Nahanni watershed is broadly supported locally, across Canada, and internationally. In 2006, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee recommended that Canada protect the entire South Nahanni watershed in recognition of the area’s globally significant values. Scientists have also recommended that the entire watershed be protected in order to secure its ecological integrity, including adequate habitat for woodland caribou, Dall’s sheep and grizzly bears....

The original study area for Nááts’ihch’oh NPR included important habitat for grizzly bears and key calving and breeding grounds for the Nahanni and Redstone herds of mountain woodland caribou. Both of these species are listed under the federal Species at Risk Act, and need large intact areas to survive. The area is also home to the northernmost populations of mountain goats in Canada, and is home to Dall’s sheep which are part of the genetically unique Nahanni population that was isolated during the last ice age....

The boundary announced by [the Prime Minster] in 2012 falls far short of what is needed to protect the ecological integrity of the world-renowned South Nahanni watershed, leaving critical wildlife habitat, including caribou calving and breeding grounds, and source waters of the Nahanni River outside the park boundary. This boundary disregarded public input in the park establishment process, as well as scientific evidence of what’s needed to fully protect the ecological integrity of the area and the habitat of these sensitive species. The boundary takes full advantage of potential industrial development in the area, protecting less area than any option presented during the public consultations....

Though relatively pristine, resource exploration, mine development and road access have encroached upon the headwaters of the South Nahanni River. There is a real risk that the ecological integrity of the entire watershed will be compromised if Nááts´ihch´oh NPR is not expanded to fully protect the remaining part of the watershed. Its role in completing protection of the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem, as well as its ecological and cultural significance, make it a critical area to fully protect.

As I indicated earlier, New Democrats are fully in support of the bill being sent to committee. At committee, I am sure there will be an opportunity for a very fulsome review of the bill and of the final consultation report that Parks Canada conducted, and an opportunity to hear from witnesses from the first nations and Métis peoples of the region, environmental organizations and industry on their perspectives on the particular option that was proposed.

One thing I think many people will be looking forward to hearing about is how the ecological integrity of the park reserve will be preserved in the context of other kinds of activities that can be allowed. As well, it will be very important for the government to clarify exactly what resources will be available, both in terms of financial and human resources, in order to ensure that Parks Canada will be able to do its job in promoting and supporting the ecological integrity of the park reserve.

In conclusion, New Democrats are supporting the bill at second reading and I look forward to the discussion that will happen at committee.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, as well as her commitment to pass this expeditiously. I want to ask her to clarify what “expeditiously” means. Has she dealt with her colleagues and are they ready to let this pass today?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the process in the House is a negotiation between our two House leaders. Therefore, I would suggest that he speak to his House leader, I will speak to my House leader, and we will allow the two of them to sort that out procedurally, because that is the most appropriate place for that discussion to take place.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his very important, well-thought-out and eloquent speech.

The Government of Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity with the so-called Aichi targets. It is important to meet those targets, which seek to protect at least 17% of biodiversity by 2020. Right now, only 10% of biodiversity is protected.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I participated with the Conservatives and Liberals in developing the national conservation plan. I am pleased to see that this plan exists, but unfortunately it is still not being implemented. There are new parks, but we keep seeing problems. For instance, there are problems with the Sable Island national park, the Rouge national urban park and now the Nááts’ihch’oh national park. This park will not provide the natural habitat needed to protect the wildlife that is supposed to live there. What can my colleague make of the whole situation?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer back once again to the report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The commissioner specifically talked about ecological integrity and its importance. The commissioner's report said:

Ecological integrity is a characteristic of healthy ecosystems: those that have complete food webs; a full complement of native plants and animals that can maintain their populations; and functioning ecosystem processes such as nutrient, water, and natural fire cycles that ensure the survival of those species.

It goes on to talk about the importance of this ecological integrity.

If we recognize that a functioning ecosystem is very important, what we need to do is to ensure that when we are developing parks and park reserves, we have enough of a land base to protect the whole ecosystem and that we put the resources in place to ensure that the integrity remains intact.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave me a good answer in saying that the boundaries of the park have really been poorly drawn.

Let me quote Alison Woodley, the national director of the parks program for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. She was present when the bill was before the Senate committee:

Unfortunately, I have to comment today that the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area.

We support the creation of new parks and we are pleased to see this new park. However, why are the Conservatives not giving more consideration to the recommendations of experts to ensure the ecological integrity and proper protection of parks? It is not true that protecting parks will harm the economy, quite the contrary. I will let my colleague answer the following question: what could be done to make the the Conservative government realize that park creation is also good for the economy?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of pieces around this, and I also want to go back to a quote that was provided. Stephen Kakfwi, former premier of the Northwest Territories, also indicated great disappointment in the way the boundaries were drawn. He said, in part, that what happened was that local people were put in a corner because it was either the smaller protected area that they desired or no protection at all, and this was in the Manitoba Wildlands news on October 24, 2012.

That is troubling when people are given such a stark choice, a take it or leave it choice. They take the smaller area or they get nothing. I want to reference the Tsilhqot'in decision, a very important decision that just came out of British Columbia. The Supreme Court made the decision, but it was a British Columbia matter with regard to land rights. In that Supreme Court decision, one of the things the justices said was that there is a responsibility to consider use for future generations.

Once again, when we are weighing the preservation of the ecological integrity and weighing economic benefits, one of the things that absolutely must be part of the equation and part of that discussion is the impact for future generations. What will they be left with, once we are all long gone? Those are all very important considerations when the boundaries are determined for this particular area.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is around the very similar topic of boundaries. I know that, with the creation of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, there would be a large piece of this land assembly that the people who live on those lands have requested be included in the national park reserve. With the consultation, 92% of the people had requested option one, which was the largest option that was being considered, and it seems that the boundary that has been chosen by the government is leaving out large pieces of land that are mineral rich.

There are lots of resources that would lie outside of the park's boundaries, and this would allow for new mining stakes, which are prohibited inside the park boundaries, to occur just outside. We know that mining for resources does affect the ground water tables. This national park reserve would be at the headwaters of the South Nahanni River. How would that impact the tributaries, as well as the other rivers that are feeder rivers from the South Nahanni?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this back to a local issue just for one moment. I live in Nanaimo—Cowichan, and I actually live in the Cowichan watershed. This summer we had a crisis in the Cowichan watershed. Our river was so low that not only was the health of our returning salmon going to be impacted but our local industry, a large pulp mill, was literally days from shutting down because it also draws water from the Cowichan River.

The reason I raise that in this context that it is an example of ending up with unintended consequences if we do not do a good job of looking at the whole watershed and looking at all the impacts on the watershed, whether they are mining, resource development, farming, or other industrial uses.

In the context of the South Nahanni, it is very important to look at the intact watershed and make decisions based on the health and well-being of that watershed.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, who is doing excellent work on the Rouge national urban park. That bill will soon be before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am eager to work with her on the committee because I know she is doing excellent work on that file. She has consulted organizations and stakeholders about the park. Unfortunately, the Rouge park also has some problems, which I mentioned during a speech I gave recently.

I want to focus on the fact that Canada signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. That is an important thing to remember because we have obligations. In 2013, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said this:

Canada’s targets under the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity are key to conserving biodiversity.... Achieving them will require a concerted effort from many players, from governments to businesses to individual Canadians.

The commissioner's report stated that the government needs to do much more than it is currently doing. As I said earlier in one of my answers, the target is 17% by 2020, and we are just at 10%.

This is not just about protecting land. This is about protecting land of significant ecological value because of its biological diversity. As I said, the national conservation plan is very important, and the NDP is very proud to have worked on the plan together with the other parties. What we have to do now is implement the national conservation plan, and we have to do it fast.

Unfortunately, the bills we have seen recently do not truly address what we call ecological integrity, which, I should point out, is part of the Canada National Parks Act. It is very important to remember that we have this problem and that we also have a problem when it comes to actual implementation, be it for the Sable Island park, the Rouge park proposal, or now, the Nááts’ihch’oh park. MPs have raised concerns, but so have the experts, of course.

I would like to go back to something. Of course we are supporting the bill because we are in favour of creating parks. There were a large number of consultations, and we understand that this park is largely a proper response. For years, there were consultations and studies on this. However, we are concerned about the Conservative government's attitude toward parks. Cuts to Parks Canada in the 2012 budget resulted in the elimination of one-third of scientific positions. Clearly, it could be difficult to enforce regulations governing conservation and the development of new parks when one-third of the scientific capacity was cut with one fell swoop in 2012.

As well, we want to give Canadians the opportunity to go to national parks; however, the season has been shortened, services have been reduced in the parks, and fees have been increased. The Conservatives' approach is somewhat odd.

However, according to a report published by the Canadian Parks Council in 2011, Canadian parks support more than 64,000 full-time jobs and generate $2.9 billion in employment income as well as $337 million in revenue for the government.

This shows the importance of national parks and why we need to stop pitting nature against economic development. On the contrary, the environment and the development of new parks will spur economic development, as was mentioned in the report published in 2011 by the Canadian Parks Council.

I mentioned this earlier, but I will say it again: the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development said that budget cuts at Parks Canada are adversely affecting the integrity of the parks and the environment. Cuts definitely do not help.

This brings me to Bill S-5, the Nááts'ihch'oh national park reserve act. We are disappointed about some aspects of the bill, but we are happy to support it nonetheless, because at least we are adding to the number of national parks.

The bill followed consultations revealing that the public overwhelmingly supported creating a park that is bigger than the one we have now, but the Conservatives ignored that fact. They ignored public opinion and decided to protect only the smallest of the three possible zones. They failed to include some very important wildlife areas, which is really disappointing. We are afraid that the park is not big enough, especially because the vital breeding areas for caribou and some of the headwaters of the Nahanni River are not protected. Those are some of our concerns regarding the creation of this park.

I would like to share a quote from Alison Woodley, the parks program national director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. During the Senate committee's review of Bill S-5, she said:

Unfortunately, I have to comment today that the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area. Bill S-5 falls far short of being a significant conservation achievement.

Ms. Woodley specializes in parks and conservation projects.

Earlier I said that this was unfortunate, because it is a good idea and the consultation was done. Unfortunately, the result was a disappointing bill, and it will not help Canada achieve the Aichi targets in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that we need to meet. We committed to this convention and we signed it. The Conservative government needs to be much more proactive and needs to take more significant action.

I can say that when the NDP takes power in 2015, we will be much more proactive about creating parks, and we will ensure that everything will be based on solid science. We will not cut the number of scientists by one-third. On the contrary, we will invest in science to create new parks and comply with the convention. When we create a new park, we will ensure that it will protect critical habitats and important rivers as much as possible.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his good work in the House and in his riding.

I would like to get back to the issue of public engagement, which my hon. colleague referenced in part. We have a government that, when it can, will skirt public engagement or tilt the results in its favour in order to get what it is after. We have seen this time and time again. We are seeing it in this case too.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on this as part of a larger story of the way the government tries to not listen to the concerns and the wishes of Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

It is the same as what is happening with the Rouge national park. The Conservative government simply wants to do what it wants. It disregards consultations and ignores the concerns that have been raised about preserving ecological integrity.

My colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River will be in committee to make sure that the Conservatives listen to reason, and I hope that they will be able to understand how important this issue is.

This bill on the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is just as important. The public was calling for the biggest among the three proposed plans, but unfortunately what came out was the smallest plan that offered the least value in term of conservation.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that our government has, in fact, increased the amount of protected land in the country considerably since we have taken office. This, of course, means a gain in the protection of ecological integrity in our lands across the country.

With regard to this particular park, I was wondering if my colleague would indeed verify that it would be a net benefit in terms of the protection of land in Canada if this particular piece of legislation passed. As well, could he acknowledge that it would be in the implementation of a parks management plan that there would be further engagement in terms of both visitor experience and the development of ecological integrity plans?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the work that my hon. colleague tried to do when she was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

Unfortunately, when she was in that role in 2012, massive cuts were made to the budget of Parks Canada. This resulted in the loss of a third of the scientific staff complement, the very people who enable us to properly assess ecological integrity and create parks that will best improve wildlife conservation and respect our convention on ecological biodiversity.

This park is a good start, but it is not the park the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the general public were hoping for. Indeed, we were together at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development when we worked on the national conservation plan. Nonetheless, we must now enforce it and we are way behind. Only 10% of land is protected, while the target is 17% by 2020, which is fast approaching.

The NDP will form the government before then, which will improve things.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am rising in the House since the incidents of yesterday, I just want to take a moment to thank all the House of Commons security services and all our security partners who helped. I extend my deepest condolences and those of my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River to the family of Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Our thoughts and prayers are also with Constable Son, of the House of Commons security team, who suffered a gunshot wound, in the line of duty, protecting our House of democracy.

I will move on to Bill S-5, which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve of Canada. The Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is in the Northwest Territories in the South Nahanni watershed. The proposed area for the park covers an area of 4,895 square kilometres, situated entirely in the Tulita district of the Sahtu settlement area. The proposed area for the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has been long recommended for conservation by the aboriginal Sahtu people, who have been the guardians of that land for thousands of years. They have said that land use should be for conservation.

I was reading from CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Northwest Territories Chapter, when I was doing some research to learn about the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. The first thing that came up is the following:

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve lies in the headwaters of the South Nahanni River watershed, upstream from and adjacent to Nahanni National Park Reserve...and World Heritage Site. These two parks, working together, are necessary to protect the globally-renowned land, water and wildlife of the South Nahanni Watershed.

Right away, when I was doing my research, the first words that came up were about the importance of conservation for the aboriginal people of the Sahtu, who have been the protectors of those lands for thousands of years. Then, from CPAWS Northwest Territories, the word that stood out for me was “protect”. It is to protect the land assembly and the groundwater table and the entire watershed.

The proposed Rouge national urban park has a potential land assembly of 100 square kilometres, which includes land surrounding the Rouge river and the Duffins Creek watershed in Toronto, Markham, and Pickering. It is the ancestral home of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat, and Seneca first nations and has sacred burial grounds and village sites.

This past weekend, I spent four hours in the Rouge visiting the sacred burial grounds, the location of a past ossuary. I spent time with an aboriginal elder, David Grey Eagle, who has been protecting these lands, working with the Friends of the Rouge Watershed and many other local people who care about Rouge Park.

We have been fighting for 100 square kilometres of park, but what the government has proposed for the study area, not even the actual final park size but the study area, is 57 square kilometres. The reason I am talking about Rouge Park is that I see the same pattern with the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

When the government did the consultation with the community for the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, there were three options presented: option one was a total area of 6,450 square kilometres; option two was 5,770 square kilometres; and option three, which was the smallest of the proposals, was 4,840 square kilometres. Of the people who sent in responses and comments through the consultation process, 92.3% supported option one, which was 6,450 square kilometres; 4.6% supported option two; and 3% supported option three.

The government ended up making minor adjustments, and the option it is putting forward is the closest to option three. The government is supporting approximately 3% of all the people who were consulted on what they wanted for that protected land area. It does not make any sense. The government should be supporting the comments of 92.3% of the people consulted rather than 3%.

The Nahanni National Park Reserve, which is just south of the Nááts'ilch'oh national protected reserve, would protect approximately 86% of the watershed of the South Nahanni River. Protecting 86% of the watershed would not ensure the ecological integrity of the entire watershed. It is important that 100% of the watershed be protected, not 86%.

It is also important to note that the area is rich in mineral resources. The final park boundaries put forward by the government were selected so that a maximum amount of mineral resources lie outside the boundaries. This is disconcerting, because new mining stakes are prohibited within the park boundaries. It would seem that the boundaries have been adjusted and rejigged to allow for new mining stakes to occur just outside the park boundaries. This is concerning, because through mining processes, the watershed will continue to be affected in a negative way if it is not done in a sustainable manner. I and 92.3% of the people in the area are concerned about the proposed boundaries.

It would also leave out critical wildlife areas that lie outside the Nááts'ilch'oh national park reserve. When I say critical wildlife areas, I mean the caribou calving and breeding grounds. Major upstream tributaries of the South Nahanni River flow downstream into the Nahanni National Park Reserve, which makes it more of a concern, because it would not be just the Nááts'ilch'oh national park reserve but the Nahanni National Park Reserve that would be affected, because its tributaries would potentially be affected.

I would like to quote Mr. Stephen Kakfwi, the former premier of the Northwest Territories, who said that he is “disappointed with the way the boundary lines are drawn”. He said in an interview that the Prime Minister “is protecting the mining interests more than environmental interests. Unfortunately I think [the Prime Minister] has let down Canadians in his choice”. He went on to say that local people were put in a corner, because it was either the smaller protected area that was put forward or it was nothing.

I am in the same position. All New Democrats have the same belief. We want more protected areas. We support the creation of a national park, but it is not fair to put the community in a corner and tell it that it will get this tiny piece of land as a national park or it will get nothing. Why can we not just do it properly? If we say we are committed to conservation and ecological integrity, then why do we not commit to conservation and ecological integrity instead of saying that we will commit to a small piece and not the whole area?

Another issue I want to talk about is the maintenance of parks. The Toronto Star reported in December 2013, after a departmental performance report by Parks Canada in November 2013, that there is approximately a $3-billion backlog in the deferred maintenance at Parks Canada.

With new parks being created and already a $3-billion backlog in maintenance of these parks, I am concerned for the future of Nááts’ihch’oh. I am also concerned for the future of the Rouge national urban park, which is to be created in my backyard. I want to know that when we are creating national parks, we are committing to ensuring that they are protected, conserved, that there is ecological integrity of the ecosystems and the habitat, and also that they will be maintained for future use for the generations to come.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, certainly we are very supportive on this side of the House of the creation of a national park. This particular park is one that we do support.

The difficulties we have with what the Conservatives have put in place is that, again, they are not looking at their responsibilities with respect to how to best protect the wildlife. They seem to be leaning toward allowing more and more development in the area. That is of concern to many, including the Dehcho.

I listened to my colleague with respect to ecological integrity and the concern she raised with respect to staffing at the park. My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan also spoke about the decrease in conservation and spending under the government's watch.

I would ask my colleague to elaborate because I know she had a lot to add with respect to the cuts to the parks, which has even been impacting the process for the protection of heritage lighthouses.

Could the member speak to the cutbacks to Parks Canada?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing is absolutely correct. The commissioner of the environment identified that there is consistently a wide gap between what the government commits to and what it is actually achieving.

I did mention the departmental performance report in November 2013 and the $3-billion backlog in deferred maintenance at Parks Canada. There has also been the elimination of jobs within Parks Canada. Budget cuts have had a huge impact, and it has led to 33% staffing cuts in science in Parks Canada There is 60 of the 179 positions that were eliminated.

When we create new parks, existing Parks Canada staff are responsible for the creation and maintenance as well as the infrastructure, yet the government is taking 33% of the parks support to do that. It does not make any sense.

In the 2013-14 budget announcements, there was announcement of money to be spent on infrastructure and maintenance of the parks. However, I believe the timeline has been absolutely ridiculous. The budget announcement said that this year, 2014, the government would spend $1 million; in 2015, it would spend $4 million; and then, of course, after the next election, it would spend another $386 million. I think it is absolutely absurd that the government is committing to spending $386 after the next election.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the issue she was just alluding to around the government announcing projects but not backing that up with enough resources to maintain these projects. It is not good enough to make a ribbon-cutting announcement. These parks, this infrastructure, require ongoing maintenance.

My colleague has spoken to the arrears in maintenance and upkeep in these national parks. This seems to be part of a trend with the government, and I wonder if my colleague could speak to that.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Davenport hit the nail on the head when he said that the government makes announcements, shows up for ribbon cuttings, and then does not do much to maintain whatever it is that has been opened.

I am very concerned. There is already a $3-billion backlog in deferred maintenance at Parks Canada. There have been staffing cuts of 33% in science at Parks Canada. There has been a large budget announcement for spending, but the spending is not going to happen until after the next election. One government cannot bind the hands of a future government. It is promising money that a future government will spend which will not be a Conservative government.

The Conservatives are expecting that the $386 million will be spent after 2015. That will be under a New Democratic government, and the Conservatives are saying that New Democrats are going to spend it. We will spend money to ensure that our parks are maintained, but why is the government not spending the money that it says it is going to spend today?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place, especially on this day, on behalf of and representing the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

Some might wonder what a guy from Toronto is doing speaking on a bill about a national park in the Northwest Territories. What I would like to talk about today is how the issues that this bill underlines should concern all of us, whether we live in big urban centres like Toronto or aboriginal communities in the north. I am talking about the issues around public engagement, ribbon-cutting policies that do not have the backing of budgets, and the promises that the Conservatives make and do not fulfill.

This park is one that we want to see created, but the proposal on the table underlines some of the deep concerns we have on this side of the aisle around how the government does its business. I would like to enumerate some of the connections and the systemic issues that this bill underlines.

Right now in this country, we have a crisis around social access and public engagement. In my city, we saw the public literally shut out of the consultation process around the reversal of the Line 9 pipeline. If the government had the full confidence that this was a fine idea, it should have allowed for a full debate and access to public consultation. As it stands now, many people in my community do not support the decision to reverse the flow of Line 9, and I present petitions in the House almost daily on that subject.

The issue is the same, when, for example, we talk about a nuclear fuel facility in my riding which operated for 50 years, and as part of its licence had an obligation to inform and engage the public about the work it had been doing. It was discovered, because no one knew about it for 50 years, that the facility had not been doing the job that its licence required of it, and the government seemed to be nonplussed by the whole affair.

We have other—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for York Centre is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate about Line 9. I wish the member would give a speech that is more germane to the debate at hand and not debate frivolous items at this point. That debate is for another day.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All hon. members know that there are Standing Orders related to relevance. They also know that the Chair often gives members latitude to speak about associated issues. I trust that all hon. members, including the hon. member for Davenport, will make their comments relevant to the matter that is before the House.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I want to underline some of the problems in this bill in terms of the process, and how the problems in this bill are indicative of the way the government chooses to operate and get around the strong current of public opinion vis-à-vis the bills it puts forward in this place.

Referencing a nuclear fuel facility in my riding is hardly not germane to the conversation because we are talking about public engagement. In this particular instance, of those who had input into issues relating to this national park, there was a 93% buy-in on one boundary configuration and the government choosing a boundary configuration that was much smaller and more amenable to mining interests. However, it was not a decision that was shared by those who provided their opinions. That is why we are making a connection. Whether it is a nuclear fuel facility, the Line 9 pipeline, northern gateway, or a national park, we need to do the hard work of engaging the public, finding the balance, and actually listening to what the public has to say.

The other issue I would like to connect between this park plan and other issues that haunt the government's approach is on deferred backlogs in infrastructure. There is a $3-billion deferred backlog in Parks Canada. That is what it has identified. People in places like Toronto understand what this is about. There is a massive deferred backlog in the maintenance of public housing units. The government continually reneges on its responsibility to work with other levels of government to fix a national crisis in affordable housing.

Some members might ask what this has to do with a national park. I would stress that we are talking about a trend that we see with the government making flashy announcements. It has certainly made some flashy announcements with regard to housing, and there is still no affordable housing. It made a splashy announcement about a big national park in Scarborough. It made a flashy announcement about Syrian refugees. However, it does not deliver the goods. It does not provide the money or simply reneges on its promises.

The question is not so much on whether New Democrats support the creation of this park, because we do. We have concerns about the decision by the government to go with a much smaller boundary, thus diminishing the environmental protection and conservation that underpins the whole idea of a national park. There are also questions of trust. This is a government that slid in an omnibus bill, a bill that essentially chipped away at the protection of lakes, streams, and rivers. The government has an issue around social licence, around the trust of Canadians.

We urge the government to start to take its role more seriously vis-à-vis public engagement, transparency, listening to Canadians, and putting legislation on the table that does not play games with the facts, that does not avoid the deep desires of Canadians, especially when it comes to something as important as a national park.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard this a couple of times now from the opposition, and I think it is important to say that it is fair for the opposition to say that other people had a different preference. However, the opposition members keep perpetuating this myth, this false representation that 90% of people wanted something different. It is important that we deliver the facts when we talk about these things in debate in the House of Commons.

There were 1,600-plus people who participated in consultations. Fewer than 65 of them indicated a preference for any one of the options. Nowhere in that figure do we ever come up with 95% or 90% of people preferring a different option from the one the government selected.

I would give it to the opposition that there may have been people with a different perspective, and we recognize that there clearly are. However, it certainly was not 90% of the people.

I would call on the opposition members to make sure that, when they level their perception in the House of Commons, they deal in facts. The facts are clear: 1,600 people provided comment and participation, and fewer than 65 of them selected a different option. That is not 90%, and any suggestion otherwise is irresponsible.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I heard a question, but I will imagine one and answer it.

How is this for a fact? There were 1,600 written comments, and of those 1,600 only 2 selected the boundary configuration that the government chose; 63 selected otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that a minuscule percentage of those who offered an opinion about the boundary selected the one the government chose, and an even smaller percentage of the overall deputees in this process chose this boundary.

It is fair to say that a park of this magnitude is widely appreciated, but what we are doing here right now is urging the government to get it right.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend from Davenport with interest, particularly with respect to his comments on consultation.

I wanted to ask the member a question about expanding on that particular point as it relates to issues around consultation with first nations, particularly with respect to the Dene.

Does the hon. member believe that consultation was appropriate in this case? It is not only the issue of consultation, but maybe I can expand that further to include whether first nation communities ultimately felt they would benefit from this particular proposal.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a general sense, there is approval of the park project.

However, in a more broad context, if I may just broaden it out, the government has a terrible record in terms of its process of engaging and consulting with first nations across the country on a number of projects. This is a park where we want to see comprehensive conservation, as well as engagement and involvement with all the first nation and Métis communities there.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech, I would like to do what many of my other colleagues have done, which is to acknowledge and extend our thoughts and prayers to the families and colleagues of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, on behalf of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. We also extend our thanks to the members of security on the Hill, especially Constable Son and Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, for their quick action.

That brings me to the debate that is before us, which is on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act with respect to the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve of Canada.

This is a park that has been long awaited. It is adjacent to and north of the Nahanni National Park Reserve. The area for the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve has long been recommended for the conservation and land use process by the Sahtu Dene and Metis, the aboriginal people of the area.

We know that the consultation process, when it comes to first nations communities and indigenous populations, is not something the government has been good at doing. Therefore, when we are looking at this piece of preservation, such conservation would also align with the Government of Canada's commitment to conserve the greater Nahanni ecosystem, which is what it was supposed to do, and the ecological integrity of the area. The problem is that the government has chosen the smallest option, which leaves great concern about the development that would occur around that park and the impacts it would have on the wildlife.

Once the reserve was created, Parks Canada and the Sahtu Dene and Metis would be working with other land managers and resource users in the area to meet conservation objectives while respecting other land use in the area and existing third party interests, such as existing mineral claims and land leases. During the conversation we heard concerns with respect to the preservation of the park and surrounding developments around the park.

With respect to the World Wildlife Fund's announcement on Parks Canada receiving the WWF Gift to the Earth award, Chief Frank Andrew stated:

Water is important to life and it is important to us to save our water. The South Nahanni River watershed will be well protected through Nááts’ihch’oh and that will be a very good inheritance to leave for future generations.

However, we have to give some thought to the fact that he was talking about the water situation as well as the possible impacts with respect to mining in the area. That is why they were hoping to have a much bigger piece of the pie.

I talked about consultation a while ago. There is contention surrounding the size of the park. During the consultation process on the establishment of the national park, set out in section 12(1) of the Canada National Parks Act, Parks Canada presented three options for the park's boundaries.

Option one was a total of 6,450 square kilometres to be developed to best protect conservation values while providing an open area around the existing mineral interests. We heard over and over again that option one was one of the most preferred choices. In a public consultation with 1,600 participants, 92.3% indicated a preference for option one.

Option two was a total of 5,770 square kilometres. That would diminish the achievement of the conservation goals and allow more mineral potential to be available.

Option three is the one the government decided on, which was the smallest proposal, with a total area of 4,840 square kilometres. That took advantage of the mineral potential within the proposed park reserve while providing “some” protection to key values.

If we look at the protection, the concern we have is with the size of the park, because it omits vital caribou breeding grounds and lacks protection for source waters for the Nahanni River. Again, we know how sacred water is, and without good drinking water or a good base for our water, it is very problematic. We know first nations consider water very sacred, as should all of us.

With little overt opposition to the size of the park from the local people, there is little political capital here, but we know it is quite important to look at that. Option one was the option we would have preferred the government choose, and so did most of the people here. However, it went with option three.

Section 16 of the Sahtu Dene and Métis land claim final agreement sets out the terms and conditions for the establishment of the national park in the Sahtu settlement area. Included in the terms and conditions are several clauses for review of the plans for the park after a period of not more than 10 years. It certainly would have been to everyone's best advantage to go with option one because it gave a lot more options for economic viability in the area, as well as for the protection of the wildlife in that area.

The NDP supports the creation of national parks in Canada's north, as well as the creation of the national parks network in Canada, including this particular park.

While we are talking about parks, we need to take into account that this is the government that has cut a lot at Parks Canada. It has had an impact, even on heritage lighthouses, and the process is going forward. I know the government has taken a lot of those resources and put them toward the Franklin expedition as well, so there has been much of a slowdown there.

The creation of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is the result of seven years of consultation and negotiation with the aboriginal people of the region. Again, the concern is that the government went with the smaller piece of it.

While the terms and conditions of the constitutionally protected Sahtu land claim agreement have been met, including the creation of an impact benefit plan and a management committee, we remain concerned about the government's commitment to the park. I will reiterate, because this is the biggest piece of it, that the larger park was actually the preferable option and it could be expanded in the future.

The government can create all the parks it wants, but without funding and careful protection of the ecological integrity of this and all the national parks, the designation is relatively meaningless in terms of conservation.

With that, I will leave it to questions and answers.

I thank everyone for their patience and understanding today on the situations we faced yesterday.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for her fine speech.

Out of the three options the government had for the park, why does my colleague think it chose the third option rather than the first, which was the best?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Nickel Belt. I know that he often works on natural resources and he knows his portfolio well. I think he will understand my answer.

When it comes to this park, the government seemed more concerned with the interests of the mining companies. An NDP government would provide enough support and the necessary resources to properly ensure the conservation of this park.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act. I will be sharing my time with another member.

It has long been a recommendation by the Sahtu Dene and Métis that Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve be used for conservation in the land use process and I am happy to see that this recommendation is finally coming to fruition. This proposed national park reserve is located in the Northwest Territories, in the northern one-sixth of the South Nahanni River watershed in the Northwest Territories.

My NDP colleagues and I support the creation of this national park and the contributions that our national parks make toward conservation of key ecosystems and habitats in Canada. However, I am concerned that this proposed site of the park will omit certain key ecosystems and habitats. Unfortunately this proposed 4,840-square-kilometre park will not include vital caribou breeding grounds, nor will it include protection for waters for the Nahanni River.

Governing is all about choices. Every day when we arrive in the House we are forced to make choices. At committee we are forced to make choices also. It is one of the responsibilities of this job. Our constituents elect us to make these choices on their behalf. The decisions that we make in the House and at committee will not always be in the best interests of every interested party. With this bill, the Conservative government is demonstrating yet again that it values the interests of corporations more than the interests of local communities.

This is a trend that I have seen from the government. I have spoken on numerous pieces of legislation over the last three years where the same theme emerges in every single bill. The Conservatives have shown their unwillingness to consider expert opinions, expert testimony and the suggestions that the experts present. In this bill, the Conservatives are demonstrating that they value the interests of the mining industry more than the opinions of the people in the region where the park will be established.

During the consultation process for the establishment of this national park, Parks Canada presented three options for the park's boundaries. Option one included a total area of 6,450 square kilometres and was developed to best protect conservation values, while providing an open area around the existing mineral interests. This option was the overall preferred choice, being picked by 92% of those who indicated a preference. Option two was incrementally smaller with a total area of 5,770 square kilometres. Option three was the smallest proposal, with a total area of 4,840 square kilometres.

Despite the overwhelming preference for option one, which was the bigger park, the government has proceeded with option three. Despite my concerns with the size of the park, after seven years of consultation and negotiations with the aboriginal people of the region, it is at least a step forward, a small step in the right direction toward the creation of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. However, I wonder if the government will be able to provide the funding and support needed for this national park to meet its conservation targets. We can create all the national parks we want, but this is truly an empty gesture without the funding necessary to maintain them.

What is the government's track record on funding for national parks?

Unfortunately, it is not very good. It is not good at all. For example, in December 2013, the Toronto Star reported that there is an almost $3 billion backlog in deferred maintenance at Parks Canada. This does not inspire confidence that our government will be able to maintain a new park in the Northwest Territories.

Furthermore, the commissioner for the environment identified a “wide and persistent gap between what the government commits to do and what it is achieving”. This gives us no reason to believe that the new park reserve would be any different. In fact, the commitment the government made in its 2013-14 budget announcement regarding the spending on infrastructure in the parks is laughable. The budget announcement was $391 million over five years to deal with crumbling roads, buildings, and dams. This comes nowhere close to covering the backlog that I mentioned, which is over $3 billion.

On top of that, the short-term spending projections are also very ridiculous. According to the government, this year, in 2014, it will spend $1 million. In 2015, it will spend $4 million. What about the remainder of the money that the government has committed? Out of the $391 million, $386 million will come after the election. How convenient is that?

However, the current government will not continue in government in year three because this sort of accounting does not wash well with Canadians. They expect better from the government. They expect the government to deliver on the promises that were made during the election about the protection of our environment that needs to take place in this country. To sum up, the creation of national parks and national park reserves should be a priority for the Canadian government. Empty promises are not the way forward.

An NDP government, in 2015, would provide adequate support to meet conservation targets, preserve biodiversity, and help local communities realize the economic and tourism potential our national parks can provide. Based upon the current government's track record, I do not think it is committed to doing the same.

In fact, we have heard from previous speakers that the the Premier of the Northwest Territories and other leaders are on record as to how the government has gone out of its way to keep very vital habitat for the caribou or the preservation of the river out of the park area. If we are thinking about preserving and enhancing the environment, we should be rejigging the boundaries in order to make national parks truly national parks rather than trying to cut corners where the effect of preserving and enhancing the environment and habitats is not taken into account.

Again, this is a very small step in the right direction. My colleagues on this side support the bill, at this point. We look forward to maybe some amendments and to listening to some of the concerns that the locals present. I hope the government will take the opportunity at committee to provide that forum so that we can look at the bill in detail.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. Consequently, questions and comments for the member for Surrey North will take place after question period.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise to speak to Bill S-5, the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act.

New Democrats, in principle, support the creation of new national parks and the conservation of key ecosystems and habitat. We are glad to support the bill.

However, often politicians make their decisions based on politics. When we are looking at conservation issues, when we are looking at ecology, political boundaries do not always mesh with ecological boundaries. They are two different things. Perhaps a better way to look at planning parks and planning our ecological future would be to pay more attention to ecological boundaries.

My background is in landscape architecture. Before I was a politician, I was a professional landscape architect. We learned all scales of landscape planning, from the backyard of someone's house all the way to regions and regional planning. The bill is something that is very close to what I used to do, and I can see there are weaknesses in the bill. One of the things that we learned as landscape architects is that rather than a political unit for planning ecologically, the watershed should be the essential unit that is used for landscape planning.

What I am going to talk about is two great figures in the field of ecological planning. I am sure that when this was sent to Parks Canada, when the planners working with Parks Canada were looking at establishing this national park, they used some of the methods that are outlined by the two great figures in ecological planning.

One is Fritz Steiner, from the University of Texas. The second one would be Richard Forman from Harvard University. Steiner's planning method has 11 steps. The reason I am going to be talking about the 11 steps of Steiner's planning method is that I am going to go stage by stage through the planning process, and explain what went wrong during the planning of this park and how the government was not vigilant enough or perhaps, more skeptically, how the government might not have honoured the planning process properly in developing this park.

The first step of the planning method is to identify planning problems and opportunities. From looking at the end result in the bill, I suspect that the government identified the issue as mining versus the ecological system. It pitted these two things against each other, asking how it could promote mining in the area while balancing it with ecological protection.

The second step of the planning is that the stakeholder establishes goals. Again, the end result here shows that the government's objective was probably to maximize mining potential in the area rather than to have an equilibrium between the ecological systems and mining. I suspect that because what the government came up with at the end of the process was an area much smaller than what was asked for.

The third, fourth, fifth and sixth steps are all scientific steps. A regional landscape analysis is done, a local landscape analysis is done, detailed studies are done, and planning area concepts are developed, all for the final step of preparing the landscape plan.

What the government did was that it presented three options: a large park that preserved key ecological areas, a more medium-sized park that sort of balanced the two, and then the smallest size, which maximized the mining potential. In coming up with the plan, the government came up with these three options, three plans.

The next step in Steiner's process is crucial. It is the step of citizen involvement.

The consultations revealed that the people supported the plan that was the most likely to protect the ecological heritage, and that was the largest park. They wanted the biggest park so that as much as possible would be protected. However, the Conservatives ignored what the people said. Counter to the facts, the Conservatives decided on a small zone and neglected to include some very important wildlife areas.

On Radio-Canada International, Stephen Kakfwi said that the government had taken the heart right out of the park, leaving the door open to mining exploration, a gaping hole in the middle of the national park.

Therefore, in ignoring the people of the area, the Conservative government has made a mockery of the whole planning process. Those scientific steps I mentioned take a lot of time. There is science that goes into it. There is a lot of consultation and analysis. In doing so, it is actually quite a costly process. It is costly for a reason. The people who are employed in the planning sector have to undergo a long education. They take, sometimes, 10 or 20 years to learn exactly how the landscape works. They develop an in-depth knowledge of the landscape and of the science of the systems of the landscape in order to preserve that landscape for future generations.

We often see, in all scales of landscape projects, that developers have an idea in mind. They have to go through the consultation and the analysis process out of policy requirements, yet their will is something else. They might actually go through all the steps of the planning process just to be able to implement the idea they always had in their heads.

I suspect that is the case today with this project and this national park, because it appears that the fix was in from the start. When it was at the first stage of planning, which was identifying planning problems and opportunities, and the second, which was establishing goals, the government had decided already that it was going to promote mining interests in this area. By promoting mining interests, it let the scientists and planners do their jobs and let them develop the three options to show that it was being responsible, but it always had in mind that it was going to choose the option with the least ecological protection and the most for mining interests.

I guess that would have been acceptable if when the government went to the actual consultation process it heard that people wanted the option that promotes mining interests the most. If it had said that, then it would have been acceptable. It would have gone through the steps and would have been able to convince the people of the area that this is what they wanted, for the mining companies to do their job there as much as possible. However, that was not the case. What happened was that people spoke out and said they did not want the smallest area preserved; they wanted the largest area preserved.

I would like to deliver this message to the people in the Arctic, in the Nahanni watershed. Under an NDP government they would not have to worry. We would consider expanding the park to the size that was desired.

My last point refers to the final steps in Steiner's planning process, which are implementation and administration. We could go through all the other steps of planning but if we do not implement the plan vigilantly and administer it vigilantly, then there really is no purpose to any of the planning process that goes on, because no one is watching what is actually being done in that area. I strongly suspect, looking at past budgets and the current budget, not enough capital has been put into these crucial steps in the protection of this area.

Although we will support the bill at second reading, we believe there is a lot lacking in the plan for this national park.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my friend's comments with respect to the development of this proposed new national park. He raised a really important concept with respect to ecological boundaries. I would like him to expand on what was missing, which would have been of ecological significance in the larger park proposal that should have been included, and why the larger park boundary is of importance.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get the time to discuss Forman's ideas, Forman from Harvard, who is also an ecological planner. He has the idea of connectivity of interior habitat, patches and mosaics. Basically, when a landscape is fragmented, disturbances are created in the systems that are there. When we talk about faunal systems such as caribou or other wildlife, by fragmenting the habitat, the connectivity is sometimes ruined, which ruins breeding grounds, feeding, different elements of the habitat of certain wildlife species.

In choosing the smallest plan and cutting out the heart and allowing mining interests, there will be much more fragmentation, and this will have a much greater impact on wildlife groups in the park.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague.

We have seen a pattern with the government where it seems to treat the environment as something that can be stripped and exploited at will, with absolutely little interest in the catastrophic issues that we deal with on climate change.

Of 1,600 submissions that were brought forward, only 2 asked for the option that was chosen by the government, which was to allow maximum mining activity in this pristine area. Could my hon. colleague tell me why he thinks the government completely ignored 93% of people who said that this area needed to be protected?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

As I mentioned before in my speech, Mr. Speaker, the government obviously entered into the planning process in bad faith. At the beginning of the process, it already had in mind that it would maximize mining interests in the park and it held on to that idea in the face of scientific analysis and in the face of public consultation.

The government used the planning and public consultation process as a way to legitimize its bad decision of maximizing mining interests for the sole goal of short-term growth against long-term ecological planning for future generations.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the NDP will be supporting the development of this park. It is great news to have an additional national park added to Canada's vast suite of national parks.

Opposition members are not being quite honest about the numbers they are presenting when they talk about 93% of the consultation process. Of the 1,600 consultations that occurred, under 60 people contributed an opinion one way or another about those park boundaries. In terms of picking an option, the numbers were very low.

The government had a decision to make and the government did that in consultation with the great people of the Northwest Territories. The business interests that were important in that region were included. The people of the Northwest Territories asked for those opportunities, and we responded.

It is important that NDP members at least acknowledge they are not being completely accurate when they throw out the percentages but do not acknowledge what those percentages represent in terms of the raw number of people consulted on a plan that would be good for that region both in terms of economic and environmental protection.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government put energy into implementation and administration, and backed it up with people and firm numbers that actually made sense for the protection of these areas, then perhaps we could entertain the idea that this would be done responsibly. The government has not even put anything from the budget into the administration of these areas, which renders the whole planning process meaningless.

The government has ignored the people who have made boundary decisions. There is not a huge population up in the Arctic, so a figure like 1,600 people is significant and a figure of 65 people expressing a boundary interest is significant, and should be taken into account.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to represent the people of the great region of northern Ontario, which, latitudinally, is south of the Nahanni watershed, but still represents the great north of Canada.

In the beginning, we are talking about Senate Bill S-5, the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve boundaries. They are adjacent to and north of the Nahanni National Park Reserve, a beautiful area of our country. My dear friend Jack Layton always spoke of the impact that the Nahanni left on him when he visited it a number of years ago. For him, seeing the great beauty of Canada was a transformative moment.

I think Canadians watching this are asking themselves about the government's appalling attitude toward the environment and the games that have been played again and again with the serious issues of catastrophic climate change facing us. For example, when we ask questions in the House about the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its findings, we generally hear laughter and ridicule from the Conservative backbenchers, as though this was made up or, as the Prime Minister once said, some kind of socialist plot. He might think it is a socialist plot but it is real, and we all live on this one planet.

When we talk about how the decision on this park reserve was made, we need to look at it in terms of this rip-and-ship philosophy of the Conservative government.

I represent vast mining regions, some of the largest gold and copper mines. The deepest copper based metal mine in the world is in my region. There are diamond mines. My region is used to resource development, but what we see from the government is akin to a gambler's addiction to resources with absolutely no interest in the future, whether it is value-added processing or the protection of the environment. It believes that what should be written into any development project is that our children and grandchildren carry the cost of the quickest way of getting resources out of the ground. Whether it is the bitumen in the tar sands or strip mining, the environment of our country should be pay the debt.

We are looking at the land reserve that was set aside. I will talk a bit about public process and the scam when we deal with very large interests that decide they would put their own financial interests above the interests of the public good. As we talk about this, I want to talk about this very important protected area and the need to have protected areas in Canada. That is not to say there will not be development, we are a development nation. We have enormous geography, but we have to choose to put value on the watersheds and the areas that need to be set aside so there can be protection.

The UN's fifth and final intergovernmental report on climate change released this past week was absolutely shocking. It says that we are now at the point of facing irreversible impacts on people, that these impacts are already being observed, including rising sea levels, more acidic oceans, melting glaciers, Arctic sea ice and increasing erratic weather. Again, the government is like a gambling addict. It does not seem to notice or care that we are mortgaging our future generations so we can get the quickest buck out of the ground without having a long-term sustainable economic plan.

We have the means to limit climate change. Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said, “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change”.

I am not one who is pessimistic about the future. I look at what our country did in the Second World War when a country of 10 million people raised the 4th largest navy and air force in the world, and fed Europe because we saw a threat. Yet I see this complete lazy disinterest in addressing the ultimate issue of our generation and our children's and grandchildren's generations, which is the march toward irreversible climate change.

Over the last six decades, Canada has become warmer. In any region of our country, erratic weather patterns have changed substantially. The temperature rose 1.5ºC between 1950 and 2010. This does not come from the New Democrats. This does not come from a socialist plot. It comes from a federal government report on the unique risk that Canadians face. The impacts of irreversible climate change will be felt first and foremost in Canada's far north.

Representing the great region of James Bay, Ontario, where the land is sitting about two feet above sea level, and we have huge issues of flooding at the best of times, the issue of not planning for the future of this region, if we are dealing with moving toward irreversible climate change, is going to be catastrophic.

Let us look at the government's commitment to the environment when it comes to this park. We are going to play a little game. I will give three options, door one, two and three, and ask the people back home to figure out what door the Conservatives opened.

Behind door one, we had a park reserve of 6,450 square kilometres focused on protecting the watershed values.

Behind door two, it was diminished. It was 5,770 square kilometres. It lessened the environmental protection and allowed for more mining options.

Behind door three is the smallest reserve. There are 4,840 square kilometres that were built around ensuring the mining companies would have what they needed and whatever interests they wanted. If we wanted, we could preserve the rest. Out of the 1,600 submissions, only 2 asked for door 3, the choice of ensuring maximum mining interests in this Nahanni region, with the minimum of conservation growth.

What does everyone think the Conservative government chose? The answer is obvious. It chose door three, the one that had no local support, that did not preserve the environment and that offered the maximum benefit to the mining interests. It speaks to the Conservative rip-and-ship philosophy that these incredible natural wonders we have been blessed with exist as a backdrop. If we want to strip mine it and dump it, why not there? It is as good a place as any.

The New Democratic Party does not believe in that. Again, representing a region that is heavily based on mining, we know our industries create an environmental impact. We want to work to ensure we have the highest environmental standards.

I talked to mining interests about the direction Canada was going in when, for example, the government cut the navigable waters act and the water protection to 99.97% of our lakes. I said to them that the mining sector must have thought it was really great, and they said no. That is not what they wanted. They want peace on the ground in terms of their ability to do their resource development. They want to be able to say to Canadians that they can do this right. If the government establishes the rules for the environment, they will live by them. That is in all of the conversations I have had with mining interests.

The other thing I hear from the mining sector is that if there is a role for the federal government, it is how does it ensures there is training for the large percentage of unemployed first nations youth who are in the territories, like the Ring of Fire, so they can become employed and part of the economy? That way, we can move together.

However, again and again, we see this myopic belief that the environment will pay whatever price to fast track development, even when the development is not sustainable because we will not get the long-term benefit from the jobs.

We represent a region where people fly in and out, and it is an open pit where there is no value added. Of the many mining families that I know, if we asked them, they would say to leave it in the ground. It is their capital for our future generations. If they are not going to mine it properly and are not going to get the maximum benefits so their communities can grow, then it should be left in the ground. However, that is not the attitude of the Conservative government. Its attitude is get it out as fast as it can and get it on a boat to China, where the value-added processing will happen in another jurisdiction, not here. We do not agree with that.

Going back to this national park reserve, the government presents us with the least favourable option. Are we going to vote against the least favourable option? No. We would rather have some of this protected than nothing.

The government needs to understand that if it is going to have credibility on the international stage when it comes to the issues of climate change, and we see what our European partners are doing, it has to start sending some signals that it does care about the environment.

Stephen Kakfwi, the former premier of the Northwest Territories, said that the way the boundaries were drawn the Prime Minister chose to put the mining interests above environmental interests and that the he had unfortunately let Canadians down. He said, “That is not a national park, that is a joke.”

Those are serious words from a former premier of the Northwest Territories.

He goes on to state:

[The Prime Minister] has taken the heart right out of it. The middle of [this reserve] is carved out so that mining can happen dead centre in the middle of the proposed national park.

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society stated:

...the park boundary proposed in Bill S-5 will not achieve this conservation goal because it leaves out much of the important habitat for woodland caribou, including critical calving and breeding grounds, as well as for grizzly bears and Dall's sheep. It leaves out a significant part of the Little Nahanni River, which is a major tributary of the South Nahanni River and includes some of the most important habitat in the area.

One of my favourite lines of the government is “record investments”. Whenever it is cutting money it speaks of record investments, such as record investments in first nation education and record investments in water. If we go to any of those communities they will just laugh and say, “What record investments?”

The Conservatives will say they have record investments in Parks Canada and that they value Parks Canada. They promised us $391 million in budget 2013. To the folks back home, $391 million is clearly an impressive number, but how much did they actually spend? They spent $1 million. That is not even close. Last year they spent $4 million. We are still not even near what they promised. We will have to wait until after the election for the rest of the more than $380 million and the next government will have to follow through on that. Therefore, we get the ribbon-cutting, we get the big announcements, we get the promise on a commitment to the environment, but none of the money comes forward.

In Parks Canada, we see the layoff of employees, the issue of crumbling infrastructure, and the need to maintain these important jewels, these watersheds, that are crucial to maintaining the biodiversity of this country.

However, there is also the sense of how people view us internationally. When I am in the far north of Canada I regularly meet Europeans who come here because they are fascinated by the immense beauty of regions such as the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. They come here because this is their view of Canada. There is an enormous economic power to these national parks because people see that Canada still has them in areas where the rest of the world does not. Therefore, we have to put some value back by saying that these should be protected watersheds. This is not to be anti-development, but development has to be done in a smart and sustainable fashion with a sense of balance. Right now, there is absolutely no balance with how the government is approaching resource development.

In terms of the three options that were laid out, only two submissions supported the weakest option, but that is the one the government chose. Anyone who has been involved in a public consultation process will say that more often than not it is a shell game. When there is a mega-project to be developed, the rules have changed. Now, one must prove why public comment is needed, but public comment is a box that is ticked off. When the government has decided that it will go ahead with a major development project or a first nation consultation it just has to tick off the box.

I remember the Conservatives were going to build a toxic waste incinerator in northern Ontario on the territory of the Algonquin Timiskaming First Nation. I worked with the Algonquin nation. The very last night before the consultation period ended the Conservatives showed up in the community with their dog and pony show. The Government of Ontario said it was excellent that they had done a consultation. The Algonquin said that they would see them in court and that was the end of that. That is not consultation.

We also see that the government is almost standing alone in the world in its opposition to the push by the UN on the issue of free, prior, informed consent for the development of projects. There are constitutional provisions that have to be protected.

The conservation plan could have made the government look so good. I know I am not a friend of theirs, but the Conservatives could use some loving now on the environment. They could use a bit of credibility, just a fig leaf. They could just give us something. I am not even going to beat on the Conservatives. They are just so over the top with their attitude. They could have done something. They could have said, “We are not going to go with door number one, which is maximum protection; and we are not going to go with door number three, minimum; we will go with door number two, we will just balance it”.

However, “balance” to the Conservatives is a word that sounds like weakness or socialism or extremism or radicalism. That is their idea of balance, so they are not going to choose balance. They are going to choose the weakest environmental protection with the maximum exploitation of resources.

We will be supporting the bill because we would rather have something than nothing at this point. However, in 2015 they will see a New Democratic government having to do so much work to fix the disaster that the Conservatives have left on our environment.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He represents a great northern riding in Ontario and I appreciate his concern for both the environment and our national park expansions.

It is important to note that when he talked about the least favourable option in this scenario, the least favourable option would clearly be no expansion at all. It was our government that took the existing Nahanni National Park Reserve, expanded it by 4,000 additional square kilometres and then expanded it again to be the third-largest park complex in all of Canada, to 35,000 square kilometres of wilderness protected in the Northwest Territories. That is courtesy of our government and our government's interest in investing in protection and preservation of the environment.

The hon. member talks about Europeans coming over here, and indeed they do to my territory, to the member for Northwest Territories' territory, to Nunavut and across all of Canada. They come here because we have areas protected. Our government has protected areas bigger than nations in Europe, bigger than the countries from which those visitors come. That is a great record.

The most favourable option is the option that finds balance between development and a strong investment climate. My comment for the member for Timmins—James Bay is this. He comes from an area where a stable investment climate is required for growth and development, and he must see that there is an absolute need for that balance and we have struck that balance.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and say once again what beautiful country he represents. I left my heart in the Yukon. It is almost as nice as Timmins—James Bay and yes, as I have said, we are mining country.

I would warn the member to be wary of bringing in European states. We could probably fit Luxembourg and a few other areas right into the city of Timmins. Certainly, we can fit all of Great Britain into Timmins—James Bay. When we travel five hours, that is called “going to work”. When they travel five hours that is like going across Europe and back for weeks. We have to be careful here when we deal with the issue of size.

In case I misunderstood my colleague in saying that it was courtesy of the Conservatives who had this vision, the way I heard the story was this. I am from Timmins—James Bay and I did not get to university, but the way I heard the story was that it was first nations people who have been fighting for this for a long time, before even the present European tourists came over, and before our European tourists came over and actually never left.

The best option is the one that finds the balance. With the incredible beauty of the land of the North, we have enormous opportunity for a stable economic climate. That is why international miners have returned to Canada; because we are stable economy. Let us just protect the beautiful areas that we have.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, and I note that he comes from an area that has some of the most beautiful, pristine provincial parks certainly in Ontario.

I think of the particular instance dealing with the ancient red pine forest, the old growth forest that we find, I believe, either in his riding or in the adjacent riding. I would like to get the member's comment with respect to how Ontario dealt with that particular situation as compared to the situation that is before us here on this proposed national park.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about my backyard. Just down the road there is Four Bass Lake, which is an area of Temagami, which has some of the most beautiful canoeing lakes in the country.

I have admit that I love wilderness and I live in wilderness, but as my old man said, “if you can't see it from a car window, it's not worth looking at”. Therefore, I actually do not see a lot of the beauty of our land because my family does not sleep on the ground. I have to admit it, but it is just a thing we have. It is like being Scottish working class.

We are sitting in some of the most beautiful country, but there have been huge fights in our area to protect the wilderness value. In the Temagami region on Red Squirrel Road, I have friends who were on both sides of the blockades, the people who wanted to work and the people who wanted to protect it.

These are hard decisions. They are hard issues because we are talking about an economy that is based on extraction and also talking about the need to preserve. We managed to preserve the white pine forests and it is good because it is a long-term value for our grandchildren. Every time I drive by them on the way home, I thank God I live in such beautiful country and some day I am going to get in a canoe and actually go a little farther and see it, but that might wait a few years.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly taken by the member's comments about climate change in the context of this northern park. I had the pleasure of hiking and backpacking across Auyuittuq National Park this summer. I saw climate change in Nunavut up close and personal as we could watch the glaciers recede and the waters were much higher. This is not theory; this is practice. When we talk to national park staff they confirm what my friend has said, which is that the budgets for national parks are not being kept up.

In the context of my friend's remarks about this park, does the number of kilometres that have been saved matter if we have no credible plan to manage that park? When the former premier of the Northwest Territories is saying that they have “taken the heart right out of it. The middle of it is carved out so that mining can happen dead centre in the middle of the proposed national park.”

Without a management plan, does it really matter how large the created entity would be?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria for bringing me back to the point. My colleague in the Conservatives had me off track for a second there.

The issue is serious. We are talking about the UN report on the impacts of what irreversible climate change will mean and we have to understand that in Canada we are a northern climate. It will have devastating impacts. I know it will have devastating impacts in my region where we are so close to sea level in terms of the upper James Bay and the Hudson Bay region.

In terms of commitments, it is not enough to be able to say we have done this, or we are going to issue a press release or do one of those actions for the economy. That means nothing. We have to put money behind our resources. We have to put laws in place to ensure environmental protection. This is what the rest of the world is seeing from Canada. It is seeing a lot of hot air, literally, but it is not seeing any commitment to moving forward, while the rest of the world is starting to move forward because people understand the urgency of this issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my friend's concerns about this park. When someone with the experience of Steve Kakfwi, both a leader in his first nation and a leader at the political level as former premier, expresses concerns that this park's boundaries are entirely political and do not represent the consensus that was achieved between first nations and previous governments, I am concerned.

Does the hon. member believe that there is time in this Parliament to fix the boundaries of this park so that it respects what was required for ecological integrity, what is needed for species protection and what was agreed upon by first nations in the Yukon?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly what the consultation process heard was the option for protection in this watershed area. That is what was said. That is what was agreed on and that was not delivered by the government. Now the bill is being brought through the Senate and we are put in the difficult position of being told to take something rather than nothing. We should be taking the best because we need to send that message.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one part of the speech from my friend from Timmins—James Bay that really struck a chord with me was about the government's orientation to the idea and the nature of consultation.

When the government shows up and holds public meetings and asks for opinions, a lot of Canadians assume—wrongly, in the case of Conservatives—that those consultations will mean something. They assume that in whatever plan comes out the other end—in this case for a protected area, and in other cases for proposed pipelines going across Canada—the consultation will be meaningful.

First nations have a very strong legal argument that has been supported by recent Supreme Court decisions bolstering the effect and importance of consulting with them. However, there are many other Canadians who are feeling left out of this process and whose lives are on the line in some cases. Their livelihoods and communities may be on a pipeline route or adjacent to a major mine with a potential for effluent or pollution to come from it.

The Conservatives' approach to resource development is what they call “bulldozer politics”: just push through any type of opposition or comments rather than incorporating local wisdom and know-how, which should be the basis of any decision the government makes.

Is there not a sea change required in Canada for those who seek to do something with natural resources? Should we not develop resources and add value, rather than ship everything out raw? Should we not bring community consultation to its rightful place at the heart of our decision-making, rather than, as the member said, having some tick-box that gets ticked off and pushed to the side? That approach, by the way, only builds resistance in those very same communities.

Why not incorporate the wisdom, intelligence, and long-standing knowledge of the areas we are talking about from those people who live there and have the most on the line, as opposed to the bulldozer approach used by Conservatives? The bulldozer approach helps nobody, certainly not those communities, and many would now argue that it does not help industry either.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague. He has been on the front line of issues regarding pipelines, including the Kinder Morgan and northern gateway projects.

The current government does not seem to clue into the fact that it needs a social licence. Without a social licence, I am sorry, nothing goes ahead. Kinder Morgan can threaten people on Facebook with legal action and try to intimate people and the National Energy Board can try to keep people from speaking at hearings, but until a social licence is obtained, those projects will not go ahead.

In terms of issues in the resource development sector, when I was working with the Algonquin Nation 14 years ago, nobody talked to the first nations. Now they know that they have to sit down and negotiate.

However, until we move forward with the sense of getting the buy-in from the public—and it is possible, and big projects can move ahead—we end up with what we have in the Ring of Fire, which is billions of dollars of potential still sitting in the ground because the Conservative government and the provincial Liberals cannot get their heads around respectful consultations.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)