Bill S-15 (Historical)

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada National Parks Act to create Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada.
It also amends the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to prohibit drilling for petroleum in Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada or within one nautical mile seaward of Sable Island’s low-water mark, to restrict surface access rights provided for under that Act and to provide for the issuance of licences and authorizations with respect to activities that may be carried out in Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
Part 2 amends the Canada National Parks Act to provide that the dedication of the national parks of Canada to the people of Canada is subject to any Act of Parliament.
It also amends the description of the commercial zones for the Community of Field in Yoho National Park of Canada in Schedule 4 to that Act and of the leasehold boundary of the Marmot Basin Ski Area in Jasper National Park of Canada in Schedule 5 to that Act.

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the previous speaker that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, herself a proud Nova Scotian, did not malign any one individual. She mentioned the very serious concerns about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, which I myself have very serious concerns about as well.

I want to start off today by thanking the government for entering into discussions to ensure that Sable Island possibly could be a preservation site and conservation site for as long as this planet exists.

I just want to understand a couple of things. This is the same government that had massive cuts to Parks Canada. This is the same government that we hear speech after speech from the Conservatives talking about how great this legislation is, how great it would be for Sable Island, yet what do they do? They invoke time allocation on this debate. Sable Island was there long before any of us were here. Hopefully, Sable Island will be there for many years after we are gone. Therefore, moving time allocation on important legislation like this is unconscionable. I would truly love for someone over there to explain to the Canadian people why they felt it necessary to invoke time allocation, unless they plan to prorogue Parliament very soon and thus they know that this bill would end up dead.

I am in favour of turning Sable Island into a national park reserve. However, like my hon. colleague for Halifax, I have some concerns that need to be addressed. That is why the NDP will be supporting that this legislation go to committee. We do not have much trust in that side, but we hope and trust that my colleague from Halifax will be able to invite any and all witnesses that her party wishes to bring forward, that the Liberal Party would be able to do the same, and that the Green Party could make submissions as well, to ensure that every single person who has reason to be concerned about Sable Island in the future would have the right to say so. We are talking about the Mi'kmaq, the first nations, the provinces, the oil and gas sector, the conservationists and the fishermen. All these people need to be heard.

It is too bad the Conservatives could not make a national park out of the Senate. That would be great. Lots of people could go and visit that room and the $92 million that is spent on the Senate could go to preserve Sable Island and all of the other parks we have in Canada and maybe even create a few more. Then those senators could be added to the Species at Risk Act. That would be a wonderful thing.

Here is the problem. I have heard these great Conservatives say time and time again that Sable Island would be preserved for future generations to come. That is wrong. I wish the Conservatives would get that out of their heads. Sable Island is not for human beings. It is not for people.

Farley Mowat, who is a great World War II veteran, a conservationist and a fantastic author, said time and time again, and my colleague, the member from the Green Party knows this well because we were together when he said it, “We, as humans, have an obligation to ensure to protect our environment. We have an obligation to protect 'the others'.” What he meant by “the others” were things like bugs, snakes, horses, plants, birds and seals. The other species that inhabit this earth deserve to have their place as well.

Sable Island is not like Banff National Park. It is not like Kluane in the Yukon. It is not like South Moresby. It is not like Nahanni. It is not like Kejimkujik. It is not like any other park out there where humans can go and interact and have fun and enjoy the beautiful parts of Canada that are absolutely gorgeous. Sable Island is so fragile and so special that we should limit, with the most extreme caution, the number of people who actually go to that island.

My colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's bragged about the fact he has been there dozens of times. He has been there two dozen times and I say he has been there 23 times too often. I have had the opportunity to go to Sable Island. I can assure members that it is a spiritual experience. It is beautiful. However, I felt guilty being there. I felt that I should not have been there. The reality is that with those horses, the plants and the birds, it is absolutely outstanding.

There are reasons why some people are very concerned about the bill and are very concerned about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I remember very clearly, as a private citizen, in 1995, attending a meeting at the Waverley fire hall in Waverley, Nova Scotia, which is now in my riding. The Sable gas people were there and the petroleum boards were all there. They had maps of the ocean, which had a dark black mark on Sable Island. It was blacked out. The first question I asked was why it was blacked out. They said, “That's Sable Island. We have no intention of touching it, ever. We are leaving it alone. It's too fragile”.

I understand the need for oil and gas exploration. I drive a car, I have a house that burns oil and I fly back and forth all the time. I understand that. I was so proud of the fact that these experts were saying that Sable Island was going to be left alone, with a mile buffer around it. I felt really good about that.

However, we were betrayed by the gas and oil sector. We were betrayed by other people. In fact, they did do seismic testing on that island. I remember it very well how—I cannot say what I want to say—upset I was that we were lied to at these meetings. These were professional people, and they lied to us. They said they would never do seismic testing on Sable Island, and they did.

My very serious concern is that if we do not do this bill right, if we do not put in the concrete measures to ensure we never allow seismic testing on the island ever again, I will not have a good night's sleep, assured that those horses, those birds, those plants and other species that inhabit that island are able to do what they do in God's wonder, to do what they have done for hundreds of years and, hopefully, for hundreds years more.

That island is not for people. The island is for the others. I wish everyone in this Parliament and across Canada would get that into their heads. This is too fragile an ecosystem and it needs to be, as best we can, left alone.

I appreciate the Minister of the Environment and the parliamentary secretary indicating that, yes, in some certain cases, in emergencies, oil and gas workers or people who find themselves in serious trouble could go to the island for rescue, because it is the graveyard of the Atlantic. I understand that, and under strict controls and under strict protocols that is something I think we can all accept. I appreciate that fact.

However, we need assurances from the Minister of the Environment and the government that when this bill gets second reading there will be no shenanigans at that committee, that there will be no time allocation, that there will be no rushing into in camera, as every committee here in this House does. We need to ensure that this is a public forum for all Canadians who are concerned about this precious jewel in the Atlantic and ensure that we do exactly what we are saying here today; that is that we protect the integrity of Sable Island for many years to come.

At the same time, the government has made massive cuts to Parks Canada. We have never heard anything, yet, about funding this. We would like to see where the dollars are going to come from, where the money is coming from. One of the ideas the member for Halifax indicated, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment also indicated, is a historical and interpretive centre in Halifax. Who is going to pay for that? Where is the money going to come from? What is it going to look like? We cannot have everybody going out to Sable Island to see it. It would be much better to have that interpretive centre in the community of Halifax or another community; I am not really particularly concerned about that. I just want to ensure that the dollars will be there to ensure that all Canadians, in fact, all world visitors who come to the area, will get to know that 290 kilometres from the east coast lies one of the most beautiful places on the planet.

It is important that we get it right. That is why the NDP, led by our critic from Halifax, has indicated our support for this legislation to second reading.

However, if we see a lot of games being played there, there is no guarantee that support will come afterwards. My colleague from Halifax has said very clearly that she so desperately wants to work with the parliamentary secretary, so desperately wants to work with the Minister of the Environment, and with the Conservative government, in order to ensure we get the legislation right.

That is uncommon in this place. Normally, anything the Conservatives do would just shut it down. Anything we say, they shut us down. This is an opportunity, in a bi-partisan manner, to work co-operatively together and get it right. I am not sure why the Minister of the Environment or the Prime Minister would not want to pursue that and show Canadians that, yes, Parliament can work together as it has on many other issues.

I was here when the protection of the Sable Island gully was there. In fact, I was quite proud of that because that was where the northern bottlenose whale lived. They offered limited protection to that area. It is a beautiful gully just off of Sable Island. It is absolutely gorgeous. I have never been to the bottom of it, but everything I have seen of it and the species that live under those waters is unbelievable. The Liberal government at the time worked co-operatively to get that done.

We need to ensure that the resources for our Coast Guard, Parks Canada and Environment Canada are there to ensure the integrity of this legislation is matched not only in words but in dollars as well. That is what we need to discuss at the committee stage as well.

We have been betrayed before. Not by the Conservative government, though, I will give it credit for that. It was not in power. We were betrayed by the provincial and federal governments at that time.

I can assure the House that there are a lot of environmental groups out there. I know the Ecology Action Centre and Mr. Mark Butler, one of the great environmentalists we have on the east coast, are very concerned about this legislation. Our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands indicated the concerns of allowing the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board any kind of management say on anything regarding this Island.

Those are serious questions that need to be asked. I am not saying that someone is right or someone is wrong, but let us get the experts in. Let us get the people in at the committee stage in an unhurried manner, where we can take our time and do it right. If we do that, we can truly leave a legacy not just for people, but for the others with which we share this beautiful planet. That is the beauty of Parliament, when we can work together and achieve something that is greater than ourselves.

I will give the government credit. I used to live in Yukon near Nahanni, which is absolutely gorgeous. When that size increased, I was shouting from the rooftops. I thought that was absolutely wonderful. I remember our colleague, Svend Robinson, was arrested defending South Moresby. Look at it now. It is one of the most beautiful and enchanting areas on the planet on the Queen Charlotte Islands. He risked everything to ensure that happened.

We want to ensure that people do not have to protest in the streets of Halifax to ensure the protection of Sable Island. It simply does not have to happen. We can work in a co-operative manner and get it done.

I will offer some advice for the minister, though. There are a lot more protected marine areas that we need to have in our country and I am proud to hear him say Lancaster Sound. I am proud to see the areas of the Bay St. Lawrence and also on the west coast. I have had the opportunity to live in British Columbia and Yukon and now in Nova Scotia.

This is truly an absolutely gorgeous country. When we are connected in this regard, it is amazing what terrestrial and aquatic areas we have to enjoy in many cases. However, there are certain areas of the country which, in my personal view, should be left alone. Sable Island is one of them.

I give top credit to Zoe Lucas. She is only about 5'2" or 5'3", but she is dynamite. She knows more about Sable than the House collectively will ever get to learn. She is amazing, but she is one person. We need to ensure that it is not just her, because one day she may not be with us. She has worked in the preservation, acknowledgement and awareness of Sable Island. She has brought that to many people in Canada and around the world to ensure the integrity of that beautiful island.

The minister knows as he has been there. He understands the spiritual nature of that place. The last thing we need to see is hundreds of people showing up, taking pictures of horses and running around trying to pet them, stepping on their grounds and grass and everything else.

I have another concern. When I was on the fisheries committee for many years, we had a very serious issue with grey seals. Sable Island is the home of many grey seals. Their population has exploded.

One thing that we in the NDP will never accept is the cull of a wild species, where people shoot and kill the animals and they sink to the bottom and become crab or lobster bait. That is unacceptable. However, we will support a harvest of seals as long as the seals are utilized, whether turned into animal feed or other product. We would not allow an opportunity to go and kill 20,000 or 30,000 seals and then let them sink to the bottom. That does not make this country look very good internationally. However, if we utilize that seal product in a proper humane harvest, that would be good husbandry of the species, and would also protect the integrity of the island.

The minister probably knows that when that many seals congregate on a shifting sandbar like that, it can cause havoc and a lot of damage. We want to ensure that the grey seals do not overrun the island and cause even greater damage. We want to control the species in a manner that is not only humane but offers economic opportunities for some fishermen, and utilizes the seal to its maximum potential. To just go out and kill a whole bunch of them and let them sink to the bottom is not the proper thing to do, and it is also very un-Canadian.

Therefore, we need to know this from the minister, and hopefully we will learn this at committee: If indeed there is a time to harvest some of these seals to reduce the numbers, would the Sable Island park reserve allow limited hunting of those seals in that particular area? If it does, would it be done from the land or from boats? Having that many fishermen tramping all over the island could not be a good thing.

These are the types of things, in terms of strict protocols, that we would need to address to ensure that this legislation is done correctly. We are very proud of the fact that the federal government and the great Province of Nova Scotia and its wonderful NDP government are working collaboratively on many of these issues. However, we still do not have all the answers we are looking for. My colleague from Halifax has done yeoman's work in this regard. I can assure members that when this gets to committee, she will be like a pit bull on a bone to ensure that this legislation is exactly what it should be.

The reality is that she is the only member of Parliament of the 308 of us who has Sable Island in her riding, and that is a wonderful thing. Not many people get to say that. I know I do not. I am surprised she has not changed the name of her riding to Halifax—Sable Island. I do have McNabs Island, by the way. If members ever get a chance they should come down and see McNabs Island. It is absolutely beautiful. It is the same with Lawlor Island, but people are not allowed to go on that one.

The reality is that these are jewels in the Halifax area and off the coast of Nova Scotia that are absolutely gorgeous. I invite my colleague over there from Kitchener to come on down and I will give him a personal tour of McNabs Island and the other island. However, I will not give him a tour of Sable Island. I would encourage him to leave it alone. We will have an interpretive centre, which hopefully the federal government will pay for, and we will walk him through that. In fact, my colleague from Halifax will walk him through it as well, and tell him all that he needs to know. However, we just encourage him with the greatest of respect not to go on the island, because that many people on the island, even if it is strictly controlled, could have unforeseen consequences.

We want to ensure that the bill is done correctly. We want to work in a co-operative manner with the government. We do not like time allocation on this bill, and I would hope that maybe the Minister of the Environment could stand in his place and ask why the Conservatives moved time allocation on this very sensitive legislation.

I hope that, with our colleague from Halifax and the great NDP working with the Conservatives and our Liberal colleagues and Green Party colleagues, we will ensure that we get the right legislation to ensure perpetuity for Sable Island park reserve now and in the future.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates that the member has respected his time allocation this evening.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a pit bull on a bone: I have never thought of the member in those conditions before, but it is quite vivid indeed.

I appreciate the member's complimenting this government on Nahanni and Sable Island park. The Prime Minister has set aside more land for parks in this country than any prime minister in our history, I believe.

I appreciated all of the speeches I heard tonight. It became apparent that the NDP has a real lack of trust in relation to this issue. All I heard in their speeches was, “Congratulations, great job, but we do not trust you”. The Liberals said that they would have done it if they had just had another 13 or 14 years, and of course the Green Party member mentioned that we will not get it right no matter what we do.

I do appreciate all of the members' speeches and the fact that they have complimented this government on yet another great initiative.

After hearing the speech by the member opposite, I can tell for certain that there is nothing else to be said that has not already been said. I am wondering if the member would try to persuade other members of his caucus to allow this matter to go to committee as soon as possible, and possibly agree to do so in a timely fashion so that we could go to sleep sometime before midnight tonight, or at least have it passed before today's hour passes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a beautiful place in Alberta. I want to compliment one of the finest mothers of all time, Frances Jean. That member is lucky to have one of the finest mothers of all time. I would even say that about my own mother, who is one of the best. His mother is also one of the best. I would like him to let her know that we will always have Paris, but that is another side story.

My colleague talked about trust. The question of trust arises out of the government moving time allocation on this legislation. The Conservatives have not answered that question yet. Why did they move time allocation on it?

I understand moving time allocation on budgets and stuff of that nature, but I do not understand it on this legislation. That is where the trust has become broken, plus the fact that we have certain concerns with the bill that have not been properly addressed. Even though my colleague from Halifax has asked those questions, we have still not received answers.

My colleague can rest assured that we in the NDP, under the great leadership of our member from Outremont, will fully support this legislation going to committee. At committee stage we will determine if that trust can be regained.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it takes someone from Nova Scotia to know the island. We debated this issue last Friday and we heard a few speeches. I spoke on the issue myself. We brought up some points, and it appears that the government is open to amendments.

The member brought up a good point about the money. Will there be money following once this is designated as a national park? I would like the member to comment. Once this legislation goes to committee, does he think the money will follow? At what point is the member going to ask for the money? Is it going to be at committee, after committee, or should we be asking for a certain amount of money while we are debating the bill, provided we have enough time? As well, I am not sure that we have enough time.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an important question. These are fine words we are all talking about. There are words in the legislation, but there are no dollar figures around it. There are no financial estimates around it. What is it going to cost? Who is going to pay what, and from what department? What role would the province play in all of this?

There are other questions as well. We simply do not know. Hopefully those questions will be answered. We are not getting the answers here during the debate; hopefully we will get them during the committee process.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. It was riveting. Mine was not so riveting; it was more the fine details.

Our Conservative colleague talked about trust and asked why we are putting up speakers to debate the bill and not just going home. He should talk to his leadership and not my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. We actually had a deal with the Conservatives to do this in an expedited manner, and they betrayed us. Now here we are in time allocation, debating this bill when we actually had a deal to do things differently.

My question for my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore is about this trust issue. We were not only stabbed in the back here in the House, but the Conservatives also told us not to worry about the cuts they are doing to Parks Canada because they will not actually affect services.

However, as my colleague well knows, Kejimkujik National Park in Nova Scotia does not open in the winter anymore. People went winter camping there. People love that park, and they would love to be able to use it all season.

I would ask my colleague what his level of trust is, based on the Conservatives' track record.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, individuals in my riding who worked for Parks Canada were laid off. Not just that, they were bumped by other people in the seniority system and had to compete for jobs because of the severe cuts to Parks Canada.

My colleague is right about Kejimkujik National Park. Something I would advise all of us to do would be to go winter camping in that area. It is a tremendous experience. However, we cannot do that anymore because of the cuts.

If the government is making cuts to these areas, what might happen to Sable Island in the future? That is why we are concerned. We are hearing these platitudes about the work being done, but then behind the scenes, it is making cuts to Parks Canada and laying off some great people.

What the Conservatives did to my colleague, the member for Halifax, in reversing a co-operative opportunity that it had, was simply unconscionable.

The NDP likes to give people the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to regain trust, but twice today the Conservatives betrayed that trust. I can assure members that my colleague from Halifax will not let it happen a third time.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was stimulating.

He spoke about our co-operation with the Government of Nova Scotia. We also appreciate that co-operation. He mentioned it was an NDP government, but then went on to talk about endangered species. I wanted to confirm that he was not making a connection between those two.

The question I have for the member is the following. On the time allocation, we regret it on this side as much as those on the other side. If we could focus on the substance of these bills and move them through in a timely fashion, we would not have to resort to that parliamentary technique as often as we are.

Would the member not agree, from everything he said about the urgency of protecting this fragile asset off the coast of his province, that passing this bill quickly is the best thing we can do for Sable Island? Yes, it requires consideration in committee and yes, it requires consideration in this place. However, if we hold it up for days and days and do not finish it in this session, we are not meeting any of the imperatives that the member identified in his speech.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to read the speech again tomorrow when it comes out, that is not what I said.

I said that we had to ensure we got it right. We have to ensure that every witness, who has a concern about Sable, is offered the opportunity to come to Ottawa and debate this very serious issue. There is no rush to invoke time allocation.

While he did say that, my colleague from Halifax was working with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment on an arrangement to do just that, to get it to the committee. Unfortunately, the Conservatives betrayed that trust and moved time allocation. They did not have to do that.

If I could ask him a question, it would be this. Why did the Conservatives move time allocation on this? Why did they have to do that?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a fascinating debate here tonight, and I want to thank all the members who have taken part during speeches and questions and comments. I have to preface my remarks by saying that the previous speaker was riveting, as I think the member for Halifax and the Parliamentary Secretary said. I will be more focused on the details and the technical substance of the bill, plus I have never been accused of being riveting.

I am very pleased today to speak to the second part of Bill S-15 dealing with the establishment of Sable Island national park. It deals with three distinct matters: the amendment of section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act and amendments to sections 4 and 5 of that act. I will deal with each of these amendments in turn, found in clauses 13, 14 and 15 of the bill.

First, clause 13 of the bill proposes amendments to address concerns of the Standing Joint Committee of the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act. Section 4 is one of the cornerstones of the act. It dedicates national parks to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to the act and the regulations, and provides that the parks are to be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

This wording has remained virtually unchanged for over eight decades and has served to guide the Parks Canada agency and its predecessor institutions in the establishment and operation of a system of national parks that is truly the pride of Canadians and the envy of the world. The amendments proposed in the bill do not change this intent. In fact, they leave this wording untouched.

The bill makes two amendments to section 4. It fixes the discrepancy between the English and the French versions, a change that does not alter the meaning of this clause.

The bill also adds a new subsection 4.(1.1) to clarify the authority of the minister of the environment to use sections 23 or 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act to set fees in national parks. The wording of this clause in the bill was improved through an amendment made by the Senate. The current wording effectively avoids any misinterpretation of the intent of the proposed changes.

Clauses 14 and 15 of the bill deal with matters affecting particular national parks in western Canada. We have heard a very interesting debate from people, especially from Nova Scotia, debating Sable Island and the establishment of that national park. I would like to now describe how they address specifically the needs of two of Canada's oldest national parks in western Canada, Yoho National Park of Canada and Jasper National Park of Canada.

Clause 14 of the bill amends the descriptions of the commercial zones for the community of Field, British Columbia, located within Yoho National Park of Canada. I remind the House that the Canada National Parks Act requires all communities within a national park to have a community plan that sets out a vision, management principles and design parameters. The community plans also identify the zoning regime, including commercial zones and associated growth limits.

Since 2004, development in the communities must be consistent with the commercial zones as well as with the maximum commercial floor area as set out under schedule 4 of the Canada National Parks Act. A legislative amendment is required to make any changes in these provisions.

The first community plan for Field was prepared by Parks Canada in 1999 and led to the description of commercial zones and the commercial floor area growth limit, which are currently found in schedule 4 of the Canada National Parks Act.

In 2006, Parks Canada assessed the ecological, social and economic health of Field and released its findings in a state of the community report. The report noted that zoning was restricting the range of services visitors had come to expect in a national park, the community's economic viability and affordability for community residents. Many of the report's recommendations have been implemented, but those associated with changing commercial zones require an amendment to schedule 4 of the CNPA.

Bill S-15 proposes three minor zoning changes to schedule 4 for certain properties in Field.

When commercial zones in national park communities were introduced into the Canada National Parks Act, the bunkhouse property owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway had been developed as a restaurant, and a description of the property was included in schedule 4. It was also expected that CPR's former railway station would be redeveloped as a commercial land use, and it too was included in schedule 4. Since then, the restaurant has ceased operations, and no commercial developments for the railway station have been proposed. CPR requires both properties for its operations and has requested a zoning change from commercial to railway and utilities.

Another site on the outskirts of Field, including property occupied by a gas station, had been zoned as institutional in anticipation of a museum that has never been built. The zoning would be changed to commercial to accommodate the gas station that currently exists on the site and serves the needs of both the community and its visitors.

The site of the former Royal Canadian Mounted Police office and barracks was originally zoned residential, with a notation in the original plan that it would be changed at a later date to commercial zoning to accommodate a bed and breakfast and a gift shop. As these developments have occurred, the change to commercial would reflect the current reality.

These zoning modifications are not controversial. They are supported by the community and they are well within the commercial growth limit already established in schedule 4. They would help support services required by park visitors and the town's businesses and residents. They are important to the economic viability of the community of Field and meet the intent of the community plan objectives. They would have no impact on the ecological integrity of Yoho National Park of Canada.

I would now like to turn to the amendments in clause 15 of the bill that would affect Jasper National Park of Canada. They involve the ski resort at Marmot Basin, which is located just 20 minutes from the town of Jasper within the boundaries of the park itself.

The ski hill has been in operation since 1961, and since then has provided exceptional skiing experiences to hundreds of thousands of visitors, including you, I believe, Mr. Speaker.

Before getting into the details of the amendments proposed by clause 15, which would bring positive benefits to both Jasper National Park and the ski hill operator, I wish to first describe the legislative and policy controls that Parks Canada has put in place with respect to ski hill development and the management of national parks in general. This will allow me to squarely address concerns raised previously in this House regarding the nature of the analysis brought to bear on the proposals relating to Marmot Basin ski area and on the opportunities for public input into these proposals.

The 1998 provisions were introduced in the Canada National Parks Act requiring that the boundary and size of each ski area be set out in schedule 5 of the act. Any change to those boundaries requires a legislative amendment. The bill is the vehicle for an amendment to the Marmot Basin ski area boundaries, as currently set out in schedule 5 of the act.

In addition to the legislative controls set out under the Canada National Parks Act, Parks Canada has, since 2000, established a series of policies that guide the management of ski areas in national parks. The Parks Canada ski area management guidelines outline a broad management approach for ski areas.

Parks Canada consulted with ski areas, communities, non-governmental organizations and tourism industry representatives in 2006 to get their feedback about potential refinements to the ski area management guidelines. Adjustments were made to the guidelines based on the feedback they received. These guidelines are supplemented by site-specific guidelines for each ski area to establish permanent growth limits and set out site-specific direction for development and use.

The final element of control is a requirement for ski areas to develop long-range plans and to carry out detailed impact analysis for project proposals that the ski area wishes to advance in a 5- to 15-year timeframe.

These policies provide a comprehensive and tightly controlled framework for the management of ski hill operations in national parks that provides long-term land use certainty for the ski hill area operators, for the Canadian public and for Parks Canada.

This framework respects the Parks Canada mandate of maintaining or restoring ecological integrity while fostering a connection to place through the memorable visitor experiences and educational opportunities. It also provides ski area operators with clear parameters for business planning in support of viable financial operations.

In the case of Marmot Basin ski area, its site guidelines for development and use were approved by Parks Canada in 2008. They outline what development and use may be considered in the future, and establish growth limits, ecological management parameters and approaches to ski area operation.

The site guidelines were prepared in collaboration with Marmot Basin, and included a comprehensive public participation program and completion of a strategic environmental assessment.

A long-range plan and its associated environmental assessment for the Marmot Basin ski area in Jasper National Park are under development currently. In fact, Marmot Basin has recently posted on its website notice of its intention to have public consultations on its long-range plans, starting this fall.

The process put in place by Parks Canada clearly requires that there be a thorough environmental analysis and that the public be engaged. In fact, the public has been consulted every step of the way, from the development of the agency ski area of management guidelines, with its input leading to modification of these guidelines in 2006, to the 2008 Marmot Basin site specific guidelines for development and use and, finally, now at the stage of the development of the ski area's long-range plan. There are plans for engaging the public this fall. This answers the concerns raised regarding proper analysis and the participation of Canadians who are concerned in the project review process.

One example of the detailed analysis is the collaboration between Parks Canada and Marmot Basin on two wildlife studies that will shed new light on habitat features and local movements by mountain goats and caribou. These studies will be used in the long-range planning process under the Marmot Basin site guidelines.

Information on the research findings will be publicly available and this information will contribute to future decision making by Parks Canada about the ski area and managing the adjacent wilderness in the area being considered for the amendments to schedule 5 of the Canada National Parks Act. No decisions will be made until these studies are completed.

The House heard concerns raised about the caribou found in Jasper National Park. In fact, one of the studies, referred to above, is a caribou risk assessment led by Dr. Fiona Schmiegelow at the University of Alberta. Parks Canada has also developed its own conservation strategy for southern mountain caribou in Canada's national parks.

Turning now to the situation which gave rise to the proposed amendments, the operator of the Marmot Basin ski area wishes to improve the ski experience in Marmot Basin to remain competitive with other new and expanded ski operations in the region and stay financially viable.

The growth limits and the site guidelines for the Marmot Basin ski area are based on a design capacity of 6,500 skiers per day. Currently, the ski hill frequentation averages a little over 4,000 skiers per day. The existing commercial space can serve less than 3,300 skiers. There is a need for additional facilities and services and room for them to be developed in a manner to achieve an exceptional skiing experience, while respecting conservation imperatives.

The ski area management guidelines will only allow ski areas to add new ski terrain through an exchange that results in a substantial environmental gain to the ecological integrity of the park, which brings us to the bill before us.

The operator for the Marmot Basin ski area has proposed a solution through a reduction of its leasehold boundary that will result in a substantial environmental gain, the ecological integrity of Jasper National Park. The Marmot Basin ski area has offered to remove from its lease and return to the park 118 hectares of ecologically-sensitive land in the Whistlers Creek valley. This is undeveloped terrain that is important habitat for many wildlife species, including woodland caribou, a threatened species under the Species At Risk Act, as well as for grizzly bears and mountain goats. In exchange, 60 hectares of land in a less ecologically-sensitive area will be made available to the ski area operator to develop beginner ski terrain and cross-country ski trails.

The land to be exchanged was carefully selected to avoid caribou habitat and other important wildlife habitats, including potential grizzly bear denning sites, none of which have been identified in the area. Before any development would be authorized, further environmental evaluation of the area would be conducted in the context of the long-range planning process the Marmot Basin has announced recently and to which I referred just a few minutes ago.

The proposed removal of the 188 hectares from the ski area leasehold is considered a substantial environmental gain for several reasons.

First, the reconfiguration of the lease represents an 18% reduction in the leasehold, which is a major reduction in size.

Second, the lease reduction establishes long-term certainty in approved protection for sensitive and important mountain caribou and goat habitat, including caribou food sources and a goat mineral lick.

Third, the area would be added to an existing declared wilderness area that would have a greater degree of protection than is currently the case. Uses would be carefully managed to protect the wilderness character of the area.

Next, the lease reduction is a positive contribution of Parks Canada's participation in current and future broad-scale ecosystem management initiatives to better protect caribou habitat. The lease reduction protects broad ecological values for multiple species associated with the Whistlers Creek valley, including habitat security for other valley and sensitive species, such as grizzly bear, wolverine and lynx.

This proposal fits squarely within the parameters of the Parks Canada policy regime for ski area management. The 2006 ski area management guidelines, Parks Canada's overarching policy document for ski area management, specifically allow for the potential to make modifications proposed where there is a substantial environmental gain. This applies in situations where there is a leasehold reduction or a reconfiguration that results in better protection of sensitive areas in exchange for development of less sensitive areas.

The bill would improve the protection of sensitive ecosystems in Jasper National Park while creating greater certainty in land use. It would maintain Park Canada's authority to carry out its mandate while giving the ski area operator the possibility to make business decisions with certainty and confidence.

As I have pointed out, the proposed changes to the Marmot Basin ski area leasehold set out in schedule 5 of the Canada National Parks Act give us a win-win situation. It would be a win for the ski hill operator who could take steps to enhance its competitive position by following the strict rules set out in the Parks Canada legislation and policy. Most of all, it would be a win for Jasper National Park of Canada, which would benefit from a reduction in the ski area leasehold boundary and be able to provide enhanced protection to habitat for a variety of wildlife, including the threatened caribou.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that part 2 of Bill S-15 would bring very positive benefits for Parks Canada and all Canadians. It would effect minor amendments to section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act that maintain the strength and purpose of the dedication clause while clarifying the administrative ability of the minister to set fees in national parks under related legislation. It would make minor but important amendments that would benefit the community of Field, a town site in Yoho National Park of Canada. It would provide for a substantial environmental gain for wildlife habitat in Jasper National Park of Canada.

Above all, this bill is evidence of this government's commitment to ensuring that Canada's national parks offer visitors inspiring experiences and meaningful opportunities to connect to these places while ensuring their protection for future generations. I urge all members on both sides of the House to support this bill going to committee and moving this initiative forward.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chair of my committee, the Standing Committee on Finance, for his speech. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I hope the feeling is mutual. He can tell you if that is the case.

Naturally, I would like to thank him for his speech in which he described a whole range of measures. His speech covered a lot of things. Unfortunately, what he failed to mention were all the shortcomings or things that might be missing.

Of course, I spoke about Cartier-Brébeuf Park, which is located in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, an important place in our history. It is a key place for the entire country in terms of the French presence here in Canada. While I was listening to my colleague talk about winter sports, among other things, I could not help but think about the plight of Forillon Park, which has not lived up to its potential. Unfortunately, major cuts are being made to this park, which is a natural wonder and a cultural treasure.

I would like my colleague to explain how Forillon Park could benefit from the measures set out in the bill.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that I certainly share his level of respect across the aisle and appreciate all of his good work on the finance committee with all of the members there.

With respect to how this impacts a particular park, I would encourage the member to work with the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for Parks Canada with respect to heritage sites or parks.

I had the opportunity, as a Canadian of Irish heritage, to work with a former member of Parliament from the area responsible for Grosse-Îles as well as with the minister of the environment at the time, Mr. Jim Prentice, to increase the resources to that area and ensure that it had the services needed to show what is, in my view, an international treasure. It is a place where over 5,000 people of Irish descent came to Canada and, unfortunately, passed away, including many French Canadians who welcomed these people and cared for them. Many of them died in the process. It is a very moving site. It shows what Parks Canada can do when it combines a national historic site with a national park. It is just an amazing experience.

With respect to this bill, it actually deals with the Sable Island national park reserve. It deals with Yoho National Park and Jasper National Park. With respect to the specific park he raised, I encourage him to work directly with the Minister of the Environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, most of Bill S-15 that concerns me relates to Sable Island.

I look at what is being proposed for Marmot Basin and recognize that a tremendous amount of work has been done. When it was first being proposed, there was a real paucity of scientific data and a real lack of understanding of what needed to be done to protect the caribou. These management plans have come a long way. They will take careful monitoring, because, as the hon. member knows, there is always a tension in our national parks system between the overriding goal, which is to maintain the ecological integrity of these parks, and the flip side of human enjoyment, which includes things such as ski hills and tourism.

Would my hon. friend agree with me that we must ensure that our national parks system is not eroded by allowing industrial activity to encroach on national parks? They have always maintained the highest level of protection, the gold standard, the highest International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN, qualifications, which really mandate that ecological integrity is job one. Would the hon. member agree?