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

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

The underlying impetus for this legislative tool to amend the Canada National Parks Act in order to create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve is indicative of the environmental citizenship emerging in Canada. The very study of the bill before us today is indicative of the emergence of a discussion that is being held across the country and advanced by the media.

If we look at the media landscape and the evolution of thinking across Canada, it is not difficult to discern that people are mobilizing. In this case, it is happening at the opposite end of the country, but it is also happening in northern Quebec, where I am from, and New Brunswick.

Social and environmental considerations are front and centre, and it is highly likely that these issues, which people really identify with, will be included in some election platforms in 2015. October 2015 is quickly approaching, and some political parties are trying to do some damage control.

My colleagues mentioned that Canada had made commitments to protect biodiversity, fauna and flora. However, despite these commitments, UN rapporteurs have come to Canada over the past few years and our international environmental rating has gradually dropped.

Recently, Canada has been criticized with regard to its greenhouse gas emissions and environmental protection in general. Scathing reports have been published by various national and international authorities.

This government is preparing itself for the 2015 election and must therefore improve its image. As a result, in the bill before us, the government is being more open or, at the very least, has softened its previously strong stand that favoured investment, industry and economic prosperity above all else.

In 2014, the problem is that the government is pitting social and environmental imperatives against economic imperatives. As I have often said in the House, public involvement and environmental considerations should not be seen as a hindrance to economic expansion; rather, they should be a prerequisite to and an integral part of economic development. There is a way to strike a balance and to put such claims into perspective.

In this case, it seems that most people who are affected by the measures set out in the bill thought that the park would be bigger. When I examined the documentation related to this bill and the bill itself, I saw that consultations were held. Meetings were held with people in a remote region and public officials compiled their concerns and objectives.

However, what I noticed that everyone was saying, at least in the comments that were brought to my attention, was that they wanted the protected area to be bigger. Local residents, community stakeholders and people on the ground all indicated that they would have liked the protected area to be bigger, even though the mere fact that we have a bill before us today to create a park and a protected area shows that the government is being more open and has made some progress. Nevertheless, stakeholders indicated that more openness would have been appreciated and would have been beneficial in this case.

The area proposed for the national park reserve has long been recommended for conservation in land use processes by the aboriginal people of the Sahtu. Such conservation would also align with the Government of Canada’s commitment to conserve the greater Nahanni ecosystem and the ecological integrity of the area.

Despite these commitments, our country has a poor rating and a poor international and local reputation when it comes to protecting the environment and taking the public's concerns and wishes into account.

The upcoming election will be key, and there is a very good chance that these critical issues will come up during the 2015 election campaign.

Despite its commitments, the government agreed to the demands of the mining industry and excluded vital wildlife areas to allow for mining development in these areas. This information was also brought to my attention. Goodwill aside, and although the protections in this bill are non-negotiable, economic considerations and industrial lobbies had an influence here. The bill we are studying today was made to order, if I can say that, since some areas that are better for investment and natural resource extraction were excluded. Some consideration was given to protecting economic interests and the interests of industry on this land. Although there was some desire to protect resources, the government still chose to exclude certain areas that are more conducive to economic development.

With that in mind, there are some concerns with the size of the park, including the omission of vital caribou breeding grounds and lack of protection for source waters for the Nahanni River. I have been here for nearly four years, and we have seen how the government has gradually offloaded its environmental responsibilities. It has also offloaded the protections that are in place for resource conservation, biodiversity and ecology. The government has offloaded those protections to serve the goals of big industrial lobby groups.

That is also why we have been seeing a growing resistance and more citizen engagement right across the country. The public has had to make up the lost ground because the legal and government protections that should take precedence have all simply been removed from the political reality of 2015. The government is being open today because it knows that environmental, public and social considerations will be top priorities during the next election. The government is changing course, but only very slightly and a little too late. It is a fairly weak protection, but at least it shows some foresight.

To conclude, I would like to quote the words of Rocky Norwegian, president of the Tulita Renewable Resources Council who said:

We accept what is in front of you today in the hope that in the not too distant future the boundaries will be expanded to include more land.

Even stakeholders and those directly involved are aware of mounting opposition and the emergence of these concepts and considerations that, for far too long, were dismissed outright. In 2015, with climate change the way it is right now, people know that future governments are going to have to deal with the issue. If it is an NDP government, I can assure you that the size of this proposed park will be expanded and that environmental and wildlife considerations will be the top priority. The pendulum will swing back again in 2015. It would be commendable and welcomed by everyone.

I submit this respectfully.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for his excellent speech on this topic.

I am aware of his work on the environment, and I know how important public consultations are to him. As he said in his speech, we know that three options were considered for this bill. By far the most popular option was the one that would have encompassed the greatest area. Over 90% of the stakeholders and people who were consulted were in favour of that option. However, the government chose a different option for this bill and for the park expansion, an option favoured by the minority.

The member touched on the fact that this was probably a gift to the mining industry, which has an interest in the region. This bill goes against what people repeatedly said they want.

I would like the member for Manicouagan to comment on the importance of public consultation and what he thinks motivated the government to choose an option that was much less popular than the preferred option.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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

The government says it consults people, takes notes and is free to take their views into account or not, but I think that seeking the people's consent will be the norm in the future.

Still, the government has shown at least some flexibility even though it has a fairly limited understanding of the concept of consultation. At least it made the effort to find out what people think.

Of course, we can hardly expect a radical change of heart from this government, and that is why economic interests and the industry's interests prevailed.

However, the winds of change are blowing. As I said, the 2015 election will be pivotal and will prove that these priorities cannot be left out of politics and public administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate everything this member does in the House and in the ridings. My question, however, has to do with the funds the government claims it is allocating to certain projects and certain departments.

According to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, there is a wide and persistent gap between what the government commits to do and what it is achieving. Budget cuts have had a serious impact, including the loss of 33% of Parks Canada's scientific staff: 60 out of 179 positions have been eliminated.

Not only are there fewer people working in the management and maintenance of parks, but the government often fails to spend all the funds earmarked. Everything it does is meant to pad its own pockets, so it can say it has a surplus, even if it was accumulated on the backs of those who need help the most.

Would the member like to talk about his concerns in that regard?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Despite the virtuous aspect of the bill before us, our study has shown that there is no envelope associated with it.

As I was saying, the government is not living up to its environmental obligations. Nor is it living up to its social obligations. It often blindly delegates management and public administration to NPOs or organizations that do not necessarily have the economic foundations needed to implement a program that is supposed to be collaborative and effective on the ground.

In this case, the funds were not necessarily redirected back to the resources on the ground or intended to get there. Although those funds are essential to implementing the project and having an effective impact on the ground, the money is just not there.

There will be a real reckoning in the next few years.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would really like to wish happy holidays to my colleagues in the House, the Parliament Hill staff, my constituents and my family.

I think that is very important. In a few days, we will not be here and people will be twiddling their thumbs because they will not be able to watch us on television.

Nevertheless, happy holidays and happy new year to everyone.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5, which would see the creation of the Nááts’ihch’oh national park in the Sahtu Region of the Northwest Territories, hence amending the Canada National Parks Act.

The NDP will be supporting this bill. However, it is important to note that we question the government's motives behind the option it selected, which would protect less of the land mass than what would have been preferred.

There were actually three options, and I will just go through them.

Option 1 included a total of 6,450 square kilometres. It was developed to best protect conservation values while providing an open area about existing mineral interests. It is important to note that 92.3% of those who spoke on this and indicated which option they wanted selected this one.

Option 1 was really for the protection of the entire South Nahanni River watershed, with activities related to mining limited or restricted to areas outside the watershed, which was 15.7%. Of importance to participants was preserving the habitat of important wildlife species, such as grizzly bears, caribou, Dall's sheep, and mountain goats, which was at 61.3%, and protecting the ecological integrity of the complete South Nahanni watershed, which was about 10%.

I am quoting from the final public consultation report by Terriplan consultants. As I indicated, the report said, “Option one was the preferred boundary for 60 participants (92.3%), due to the capacity of this option to provide the most protection of the watershed wildlife habitat while accommodating some mineral resource potential.”

Option 2 had a total area of 5,770 square kilometres. It would diminish the achievement of conservation goals and would allow more mineral potential to be available.

As members can see, we are going down the line here.

Option 3 was actually the smallest proposal, with a total area of 4,840 square kilometres. It would take advantage of the mineral potential within the proposed park reserve while providing some protection to key values.

As I indicated, option 1 was preferred. Option 3 would allow for mining to occur. Again, only 65 of the 1,600 consultation participants expressed a boundary choice. However, the government proceeded with option three. As we can see, the preference was option 1.

Here are some of the concerns raised in the process. This is from a press release from CPAWS entitled “Disappointing boundary for new Nááts’ihch’oh National Park in Nahanni Headwaters”. The comment in it is from Éric Hébert-Daly, the national executive director of CPAWS.

He stated:

Creating a new national park in Canada is welcome news. Unfortunately, this park boundary does not reflect the extensive scientific evidence of what’s needed to protect the Nahanni watershed, nor does it take into account the overwhelming public support for protecting the entire Nahanni headwaters expressed during the public consultation on the proposed park. More work is still needed to protect the Nahanni.

The article goes on to indicate concerns about the impact this would have on critical habitat for two woodland caribou herds, as well as grizzly bears, Dall sheep, and mountain goats. I mentioned that a little earlier. It further states:

The legislation tabled yesterday would create a national park that leaves the most important habitat for these species outside the park.

The article goes on to say that it is about:

...the most critical wildlife habitat areas, including caribou calving and breeding grounds, and major upstream tributaries of the South Nahanni River, which flow into Nahanni National Park downstream.

These are not comments that we should take lightly. The article continues that this organization:

...has worked for more than four decades to protect the Nahanni starting with creation of the original Nahanni National Park Reserve in the early 1970s. In 2009, we publicly celebrated the Dehcho First Nations and Government of Canada’s action to massively expand Nahanni National Park Reserve. And, for many years, we have worked to secure protection of the Nahanni headwaters.

As we can see, people have been working on protection extensively, and yet the government is not really heeding the concerns being raised before it makes its selection.

Let me take a few minutes to inform the House about some of the content included in the final consultation report of August 30, 2010, which came out of Parks Canada's consultation process.

I see I only have two minutes remaining, which is not a lot of time, so I am going to talk a bit about other concerns that were raised. My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan talked about the report that found the number of positions with respect to Parks Canada, the dollars that are not being invested or are being removed from Parks Canada, and the impact this is going to have on this park.

Since I cannot go into detail, I will close by reiterating the fact that, 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 management committee, New Democrats remain concerned about the government's commitment to the park. While increasing the land mass of the park is welcome, it should be noted that there is still an opportunity to realize the ultimate goal of expanding to protect the upper watershed of the South Nahanni River.

In case people are just tuning in, I want to wish my colleagues here, the staff on the Hill, and all of my constituents and family a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member across the way, to whom I also wish a merry Christmas. Having worked in Hearst, Ontario, I know the north somewhat.

I was very interested in the claim that we are not spending sufficient funds in regard to Parks Canada. It is the season to celebrate and sometimes in the celebratory nature of the season we are in, we forget certain things that occurred in the House of Commons. I would ask if the hon. member could comment on the announcement of $250 million that would go to infrastructure in and surrounding our parks. I wonder if she recalls hearing that from the Prime Minister's own lips.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, the government makes announcements, but at the end of the day it actually does not deliver very well on those announcements.

Budget cuts have had a huge impact and have led to a 33% staffing cut in science in Parks Canada: 60 out of 179 positions. The Commissioner of the Environment highlighted a pattern of broken promises and commitments to change course and ensure protection that have not happened. He was quite disturbed about that.

I can talk more about some of the numbers. The budget announced $391 million in 2013-14, over five years, to deal with crumbling buildings, roads, and dams. The amount will not even cover the backlog, but more importantly the amount the government is actually going to spend in the short term is ridiculous. This year, 2014, it will spend $1 million, in 2015 it will spend $4 million, and after the next election it will be $386 million.

As we can see, there are some concerns with the numbers the government announces and what is actually delivered at the end of the day.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the former premier of the Northwest Territories had some rather harsh words for the government about this park. He was clear when he said, “That is not a national park, that is a joke.”

In fact, we see a gaping hole inside a national park. There is no consideration for the fact that mining is not isolated in a world of its own and the repercussions can be felt throughout the national park.

Can my colleague say a few words about the comments made by the former premier of the Northwest Territories about the government with regard to the selection and the mapping of the boundary lines for the national park?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is obviously aware of the comments that were made. I am too, because I had those comments in my notes. Nonetheless, 10 minutes is not enough to cover everything we want to say.

I can tell the House what we would do. An NDP government would properly fund the parks in order to achieve our conservation objectives, protect diversity and help the local communities develop the tourism and economic potential of our national parks.

Tourism is very important. Under this government, we have seen a decline in investment in tourism. It is not too late for this park. We could even expand it. There is still room for that and 2015 is not that far away.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-5, which seeks to create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park.

Before I continue, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the charming member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, my colleague from the other side of the Rivière des Prairies. I look forward to hearing her speech.

I am always extremely concerned about any issues that affect the protection of Canada's land and wildlife. In the past, I had the opportunity to study environmental geography at the University of Montreal and then work for Quebec's ministry of natural resources and wildlife in Mont-Laurier. I carried out a number of tasks, for example, work related to fishing in the experimental lakes. I also travelled the province and visited its wildlife reserves. I noticed the impact that taking care of our protected areas and ensuring that we have good protected areas had on different communities for a variety of reasons.

In this case, the Nááts’ihch’oh reserve is very pleased to see that a park is finally going to be created after seven years of negotiations. However, unfortunately, the Conservative government has chosen to support the demands of the mining industry, creating a park which excludes vital wildlife areas and still allows mining development in those areas. That is unfortunate. The government often excludes specific areas that are extremely important for biodiversity when creating protected areas, national parks and wildlife reserves. I was able to see how important such protections are for wildlife when I was working for Quebec's ministry of natural resources and wildlife. For example, logging occurs in the more northern areas of Quebec. That is part of Quebec's economy. It is extremely important. However, logging is done in consultation with employees of Quebec's ministry of natural resources and wildlife. When I worked there, we had to create a multi-resource forest inventory to ensure that logging was done in a environmentally responsible manner. It is a very complex issue. We had to verify whether the logging would affect sensitive ecosystems and whether threatened species were present in the area. It is always very difficult to put these things in perspective.

I am pleased that a national park is being created in a region where natural resource development is on the rise. That is very important. I hope that the protection of the land and the resources in the proposed park will be clearly defined.

I really want to stress my disappointment with the fact that the bill does not include vital wildlife areas and that the government is favouring the existing mines. There is support for mining to the detriment of the flora and fauna. We know that there are often many threatened species or species at risk in these areas. We must provide adequate protection for our land.

This is not my area of expertise. I read the documents outlining what is happening. I saw that consultations were held and I must congratulate the government for that. It is often criticized for not properly consulting Canadians. By all accounts, ideas presented during consultations were more or less taken into consideration, and at least different options were put forward.

Three options for the size of this national park were presented. I do not have the exact figures here, but one option was about 7,000 square kilometres, another was closer to 6,000 square kilometres and the last one was closer to 5,000 square kilometres. The smallest area was the option chosen for the park. We try to have the best protection in a country that is vast and has very sensitive areas, especially as a result of climate change. Consequently, it may have been preferable to have a larger area.

I also looked at what happened in committee when it studied the bill at third reading stage. A number of people, especially aboriginal chiefs, people from first nations communities or remote areas in this sector mentioned that they were very pleased that a national park was being created.

However, they were hoping for more space for their traditional activities, wildlife and plants, as well as respect for aboriginal communities. Still, I believe that everyone, both here in the House and elsewhere, including the witnesses, agrees that there should be a national park there.

To me, issues related to protecting our spaces are extremely sensitive for another reason. I represent the region of Laval, which is an island in the Montreal suburbs. Many people think it is a big suburb with big highways, but that is not all it is.

We are lucky to have some beautiful parks on the island of Laval, but they are not well known. The island lies between Rivière des Mille Îles and Rivière des Prairies. Currently, many residents are mobilizing to create a park. Their organization is called Sauvons nos trois grandes îles. There are several islands in Rivière des Mille Îles with extremely fragile ecosystems. People are taking action to make the three largest islands, Île Saint-Joseph, Île aux Vaches and Île Saint-Pierre, into ecological sanctuaries.

These islands are in the eastern part of Laval, very close to my riding. I am very lucky to represent eastern Laval because we still have a lot of green space. About 80% of the land is agricultural, and everyone can enjoy our very beautiful spaces, including forests.

There is also another very interesting park, Bois de l'Équerre, which we call Laval's lungs. This is a sensitive issue because Laval is a very diverse city with a steadily growing population. We are trying to protect our green spaces. Bois de l'Équerre is probably the largest park on the island of Laval that is protected to a degree. My hat is off to that group because I know that it is very active in protecting its spaces.

The people of Laval are very aware of the challenges of protecting land. In the past, many protected green spaces were used to build new shopping centres even though they should not have been used for anything else. Things were built where they should not have been. The people of Laval are fighting to keep their green spaces and land protected. I am proud that the people of northern Canada are fighting and, after seven years of consultations, have been given the opportunity to have a national park on their land.

I am very interested in House procedure, especially when it comes to bills. Unfortunately, the government often uses time allocation motions and limits debate in committees. However, I am pleased that debate on this issue has not been cut short and that the process was followed at committee stage. I am pleased to see that the House stands united on this question. I want to tell my colleagues opposite that I hope we can repeat this fine example of teamwork. I hope they will stop muzzling the opposition and imposing the government's approach.

I do not have a lot of time left to talk about our position and how we would address national parks as the first federal NDP government. Hopefully I will get some questions about that because it is of great interest to me.

In the meantime, the holidays are fast approaching and everyone in the House has worked extremely hard. I would like to thank all of the employees of the House of Commons, the pages who work with us every day and all of my colleagues in the House. I wish them happy holidays. I would also like to wish the people of Alfred-Pellan, whom I represent, a joyous holiday season. I hope to see them very soon over the holidays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Alfred-Pellan.

In our discussion here, we have talked a lot about the importance of the protection of species. Although we do support this bill, a lot of work remains to be done. This government can create all the parks it wants, but without funding and without strong protections for ecological integrity, that designation is virtually meaningless.

Can my colleague talk about that a little more? How important is it to have the necessary funds to ensure proper protection and make things better?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question. She has touched on a sensitive issue in talking about the importance of having the necessary funds to protect species. It is much more important than many people realize.

In my work with Quebec's natural resources, wildlife and parks department, I saw the benefits of protecting our lakes and rivers in the north. For instance, we need to make sure that fish can spawn properly. If we create a national park with a road that goes over several lakes and rivers, we will have to build culverts so the fish can continue to swim around.

Often this is done too quickly, and with the freeze-thaw cycle we have, things shift. If the funds are not available to go back and look at those culverts to ensure that fish can spawn, this has a tremendous impact on wildlife.

In this case, fish might not be able to reproduce and animals would then have less food. That is a simple example among many others that should put things in perspective and demonstrate the potential significant impact that we need to be aware of.

Resources are crucial for our national parks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. One of the things she made reference to is some of the parks or national parks in her region. These are important. We have parks in Manitoba. One of our most popular parks has to be Riding Mountain National Park, which is about 3,000 square kilometres, virtually half the size of what we are talking about today with the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve. We always look to make the comparison. One has the black bear, the other has the grizzly bear. Riding Mountain National Park has been there since about the 1930s or 1940s.

The point is that we all care deeply and passionately about our national parks, and as time proceeds it is important that we continue to recognize where we can further develop our parks. However, along with the development and promotion of our parks, we also need to ensure that there are adequate resources, that there is something more than just a designation of a national park, that there is an investment in the future by having that park there in different ways. Could the member comment on that?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his comments about the need for this government to allocate the resources required to put in place the right protections.

It is great to designate a national park. We can be proud to have great national parks across the country. However, resources must be allocated to protect the species.

We are not just talking about one species. We often focus on part of the problem in these situations. We must consider the biodiversity as a whole. These extremely complex issues require the involvement of a number of scientists. We must have the necessary resources on the ground.

Like most of my colleagues, I am very pleased to know that this national park will be created. However, the necessary resources have to be in place so as not to cause any harm or worse yet, not do anything at all.