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

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

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 third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2. This bill would put into place important support for families, as well as key job-creating measures, which would build on our government's record of over 1.2 million net new jobs created since the economic downturn.

On Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-12, the Drug-Free Prisons Act. By tackling drug use and trafficking in federal penitentiaries, we will make the correctional system safer for staff and inmates, while also increasing the success of rehabilitation.

After question period, we will consider Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, at report stage. I understand that, regrettably, the NDP will be opposing this bill.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill C-43 before it gets its third and final reading.

Wednesday we will consider Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, at report stage and I hope at third reading. This bill was reported back from the very hard working justice committee yesterday. It was adopted unanimously after a thorough and exhaustive study all autumn. The victims bill of rights act would create statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime for the very first time in Canadian history. This legislation would establish statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights.

The chair of the justice committee implored House leaders yesterday to pass the bill expeditiously. I hope my colleagues will agree.

Next Thursday we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-32, Bill C-12, Bill C-44, and Bill S-6, as well as taking up Bill S-5 at third reading to establish the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.

Next Friday, the House will complete the third reading debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, to create Canada's first national urban park.

After that we will have an opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada) be concurred in at report stage.

(Motion agreed to)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Environment and Sustainable Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve of Canada.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like to call our meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to order. This is meeting number 38. We all know that the purpose of our meeting today is to discuss the clause-by-clause analysis and approval of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act with respect to Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve of Canada.

We are going to begin with clause-by-clause consideration. As you all are aware, we always leave the short title until later, so we'll move to clause 2.

We don't have any motions on clause 2, 3, or 4.

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

We'll move now to clause 5. We have a number of amendments here, PV-1, PV-2, PV-3, and PV-4, and these are all deemed tabled even though the mover is not present.

We will ask our legislative clerk to give us her information on these.

With respect to PV-1, this amendment proposes to remove the powers outlined for the minister with respect to his or her ability to enter into leases or licences of occupation of and easements over public lands in the park for the purpose of establishing a mining access road.

This amendment, therefore, seeks to do the exact opposite of what the clause intends and goes against the principle of this clause.

Members who do not agree with the powers outlined for the minister simply should vote against this clause, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

PV-2 is approved as an amendment, but we need your opinion on this one. It's considered moved.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to PV-3. Similarly, this amendment proposes to remove the powers outlined for the minister with respect to his or her ability to issue, amend, renew, suspend, or cancel permits and authorizations for the use of public land in the park for the purpose of a mining access road.

The amendment, therefore, seeks to do the exact opposite of what the bill intends and goes against the principle of this clause.

Again, members who don't agree with the clause simply should vote against it, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

We'll move to PV-4. This amendment proposes to remove the powers outlined for the minister with respect to his or her ability to issue, amend, renew, suspend, or cancel licences for the use of waters in the park for the purpose of a mining access road.

This amendment, therefore, seeks to do the exact opposite of what the clause intends and goes against the principle of the clause.

Members who don't agree with the powers for the minister should simply vote against the clause. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair this amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

Go ahead, Ms. Leslie.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

On the issue of the grizzly bears, the boundaries achieve the key conservation gains, including the protection of the upper reaches of the South Nahanni River, as well as the habitats for the woodland caribou and grizzly bears.

With Bill S-5, our government has also expanded by sevenfold the nearly 5,000 square kilometre boundary of the Nahanni National Park Reserve, to the point where the Nahanni and Nááts'ihch'oh national park complex is the third largest in Canada at 35,000 square kilometres.

Together Nahanni and Nááts'ihch'oh protect 86% of this entire South Nahanni watershed. The two parks jointly provide habitat for up to 600 grizzly bears in that region.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this committee to speak to Bill S-5, the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.

This is important legislation to protect the lands and water of the nationally significant landscape in the Northwest Territories. Protecting the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is a commitment that we had made in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, to protect the wilderness land of the Nááts’ihch’oh by 2015.

Creating this new national park reserve delivers on Canada's national conservation plan announced by the Prime Minister in May 2014. This park will help conserve our country's natural environment, restore ecosystems, and connect Canadians to nature.

We are creating this national park reserve in collaboration with aboriginal people in the Tulita district of the Sahtu settlement area. The park is subject to the provisions of the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement. This agreement requires Parks Canada to enter into an impact and benefit agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Métis prior to establishing a national park reserve in their settlement area.

Signed in March 2012, the Nááts’ihch’oh impact and benefit plan covers cooperative management, the continuation of traditional harvesting rights, and economic opportunities.

Under the plan the community of Tulita will be the administrative centre for the Nááts’ihch’oh. This will involve the development of office space, a visitor centre, staff housing. Construction and maintenance of these facilities will employ local trades people in the community of Tulita.

Traditional use of land within the national park reserve by the Sahtu Dene, and Métis will continue as a right under the land claim agreement. They will continue to harvest wildlife and plants on parklands, including gathering plant materials for food, medicine, cultural and other personal purposes.

Mr. Chair, I will now turn to the specifics of this bill itself.

The main purpose is to establish the park under the protection of the Canada National Parks Act.

Clause 6 of Bill S-5 amends the act by adding the boundary description of the national park reserve. The boundary achieves key conservation gains, including protection of the upper reaches of the South Nahanni River, as well as the habitat for woodland caribou and grizzly bears.

The boundary in Bill S-5 is slightly different from the one announced by the Prime Minister in 2012. An area of about 20 square kilometres extending to the south shore of O'Grady Lake was added at the request of the Sahtu Dene and Métis. This addition will serve as a gateway to the park to make it easier for visitors to access.

An ecological site on one square kilometre was removed at the request of the Northwest Territories government.

We are taking steps to ensure the new national park reserve will not only protect the environment, but make meaningful contributions to the social and economic well-being of the community.

The park provides for conservation values and visitor experience without blocking access to significant areas with high mineral potential. The bill before us will continue to allow the mining industry to use several specific mineral access roads in order to access their existing mineral claims.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I would like to summarize the steps our government is taking to establish, develop, and operate this national park reserve.

Our government has provided Parks Canada with an annual operating budget of $1.4 million for the Nááts’ihch’oh. This is in addition to the $3 million in capital investment in the community of Tulita. We have established a management committee that will provide advice on the development of the park management plan, employment, training, and economic opportunities for Sahtu members.

Parks Canada has opened a temporary office in Tulita until a new one is constructed. Parks Canada has started discussions with first nations on the supply office, a visitor centre, a warehouse, and housing units.

Parks Canada has also initiated the staffing of positions in Tulita, including a site superintendent. Parks Canada is advertising positions locally in the community and is consulting with the Sahtu on how best to attract Sahtu beneficiaries.

We are committed to fulfilling the terms of our agreement with the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and have moved to immediately implement it.

The Nááts'ihch'oh national park reserve has received overwhelming support from stakeholder groups, leadership and community members, and local regional governments in the area. All first nations and Métis as well as stakeholder groups were invited to consultations. Meetings with the leadership and community members from several communities in the Northwest Territories and Yukon were also conducted. Of the over 1,600 individuals who participated in the consultation process, more than 96% support the creation of this park.

The Government of the Northwest Territories applauds this bill. Mr. Peter Vician, the GNWT deputy minister of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, told a Senate committee on June 4, 2014, “The Government of the Northwest Territories supports the establishment of the proposed park as set out in this legislation.”

This legislation is being passed less than a year after Canada and the Northwest Territories reached a historic devolution agreement on 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 the land outside the park will not have an impact on the national park values that we are seeking to protect through Bill S-5.

The bill delivers on our government's northern strategy. It promotes responsible approaches to northern development that balance environmental protection with socio-economic development while empowering northerners and exercising Canada's sovereignty in the north. Northerners have shaped the federal boundary and negotiated terms of the establishment of the park.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge this committee to not just think of Bill S-5 as establishing Canada's 44th national park but rather to consider the larger achievement here. Globally this is among the most significant national park expansions ever. With Bill S-5, our government has expanded by sevenfold the nearly 5,000 square kilometres of the Nahanni National Park Reserve to the point where the Nahanni/Nááts'ihch'oh national parks complex is the third largest in Canada at 35,000 square kilometres. Together Nahanni and Nááts'ihch'oh parks protect 86% of the entire South Nahanni River watershed. The two parks jointly provide habitat for up to 600 grizzly bears, nine times the number of grizzly bears within Banff National Park, Canada's first national park.

Mr. Chair, Bill S-5 is part of this Parliament's legacy to future generations.

I wish you well in your deliberations.

I would be happy to take questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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.

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act

[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.

[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.

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

All in favour of the motion, raise your hand.

(Motion agreed to)

We'll move to Nááts’ihch’oh, Bill S-5, if and when it passes and is referred here.

To our witnesses, thank you for being here today, and thank you for your input in our earlier study. It was much appreciated. Have a great day.

We will now move directly to inviting Mr. Michael Martin to join us at the table.

Mr. Martin, thank you for your patience. Welcome to our meeting. Please begin with your opening statement, and then we'll have some questions from committee members.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I would like to move the following motion:

That, when and if an order of reference is made respecting Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada), which refers the Bill to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, the Committee shall begin a study of the Bill for two meetings, commencing on November 17th, 2014, with an appearance by the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, and departmental officials for the first hour, and with the potential for witness participation in the second hour, and that the committee commence clause by clause consideration of the Bill on November 19th, 2014.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, at second reading. That is a bill that focuses on job creation, economic development, growth and prosperity for all Canadians, and is certainly something that is welcomed in this time of continuing global economic uncertainty, and something that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. That debate will continue tomorrow and then will conclude on Monday.

Of course, also on Monday, the President of France, François Hollande, will address both houses of our Parliament that morning.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will consider Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, at second reading.

Ideally, we will conclude this debate on Wednesday, so that a committee can get on with the important work of studying the details of this legislation. This will be an opportunity for all parties to study the bill and its important measures in detail.

Next, I am hoping that on Thursday we could wrap up the second reading debate on each of Bill S-5, the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve act; and Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

Finally, next Friday, November 7, will be dedicated to finishing the third reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act.

There was a specific question with regard to the remaining two allotted days. As members know, I believe we have four weeks available to us after the opportunity in the ridings to observe Remembrance Day with our constituents. I anticipate that those two allotted days will be designated for dates in that last four-week period.