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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the member speak to the cutbacks to Parks Canada?

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have other—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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