Debates of Nov. 24th, 1999

National Parks Act

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on this private member's bill which is designed to amend the National Parks Act by designating the Stoltmann wilderness area as one of the Canada's national parks.

I must admit my surprise when I discovered that the bill was introduced by the hon. colleague from Davenport, Ontario. By no means would I question his sincerity or his commitment to protecting Canada's distinctive and vitally important ecosystems, as the member has demonstrated that many times in committee and in the House.

To the contrary, I think the member should be congratulated for taking an interest in wanting to preserve an important part of our habitat for future generations of Canadians to enjoy. What was so surprising was the fact the proposed piece of legislation was introduced by a member of the Ontario Liberal caucus rather than by one of the government's own Liberal members representing ridings within the province of British Columbia.

Perhaps there is a very simple explanation why a member for Davenport, Ontario, would introduce a piece of legislation that could have such a significant economic impact on the people of the province of British Columbia. Perhaps Liberal cabinet ministers from British Columbia refused to consider the bill for fear of attracting the opposition the bill would certainly generate. Maybe we could hear later from Liberal cabinet members to get their perspective on the particular piece of legislation.

It is more likely that his Liberal colleagues from British Columbia simply do not support this private member's bill. Well they should not because it is a very bad piece of legislation that could seriously impact upon the social and economic well-being of the people of the Elaho Valley and surrounding areas.

We recognize the importance of trying to find a balance between protecting the environment and encouraging economic development. The province of British Columbia has certainly attempted to do both with its land management programs. Bill C-236 could have a significant negative impact on British Columbia's forest industry, an industry that in 1998 recorded factory shipments of $15.6 billion.

This industry is an extremely important contributor to the British Columbian economy. Therefore any decisions to designate a significant portion of that province's wilderness as parkland must be delayed until all stakeholders have an opportunity to debate the issue.

No one has to educate British Columbians about the importance of protecting its natural environment. British Columbia already boasts the second largest park system in Canada, second only to Canada Parks.

To date the province of British Columbia has surpassed 10 million hectares of protected land. This includes 679 provincial parks, recreation areas and ecological reserves. This equals 10.6% of the province.

The province of British Columbia appears well on its way to surpassing its minimum goal of protecting 12% of its ecosystem by the year 2000. This would be a considerable achievement, particularly since it would surpass the 12% recommendation of the United Nations Commission on the Environment, or more specifically the Brundtland commission.

The people of British Columbia recognize the importance of maintaining existing parks while working in partnership toward the creation of future protected areas. British Columbians recognize the tremendous social and economic benefits derived from their provincial parks, their recreation areas, as well as their ecological reserves.

In 1998 their registered camping visits almost reached three million. These campers generated huge economic benefits for local residents. Total visits to British Columbia's areas surpassed the 26 million mark, resulting in an economic boon for the B.C. tourism industry.

Millions of tourists from all over the world are attracted to British Columbia because of its natural beauty. These tourists can take advantage of over 3,000 kilometres of hiking trails. They have access to over 234 parks which are equipped with facilities to address the specific needs of disabled visitors. Visitors can witness for themselves a province that boasts the largest intact coastal temperate rain forest in the world, which is protected in the Kitlope Heritage Conservancy.

I could go on and on talking about the beauty of our western most province. However I believe that one must visit it oneself to truly appreciate the beauty nature has to offer. I am not at any time trying to suggest that British Columbia should somehow refrain from designating future areas as protected parks. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Progressive Conservative Party has always promoted the protection of representative areas of Canada's fragile ecosystem.

Going as far back as Canada's first prime minister, our party has continuously demonstrated its concern for protecting our natural habitat for future generations to enjoy. Sir John A. Macdonald created Canada's national park in 1885 when he stepped in to protect 26 kilometres around the hot mineral spring near what is now the town of Banff, declaring it a national treasure.

In 1988 the previous Progressive Conservative Party amended the National Parks Act and saw the passage of the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. That same government also introduced a national marine parks policy in 1986.

The Progressive Conservative Party continues to encourage the establishment of new national parks as witnessed by our recent support for the creation of the Tuktut Nogait National Park in the Northwest Territories.

In some respects the member for Davenport deserves a lot of credit for attempting to create a new national park in British Columbia. He has recognized that his Liberal government has failed miserably to fulfil its promises of protecting a system of ecologically representative areas by the year 2000. The Government of Canada has set a goal of protecting 12% of its territory by the year 2000 but to date has achieved just slightly more than 6%. The Liberal government has once again failed to live up to its commitment to the Canadian people.

Obviously the member for Davenport is trying to distinguish himself, or perhaps distance himself, from the rest of his Liberal colleagues who have continuously demonstrated to the Canadian people by their decision not to cancel the GST or change the free trade agreement that they could care less whether they break their promises to the Canadian public.

Unfortunately, in his haste to try and salvage his government's dismal record, the member for Davenport has introduced a bill that fails to take into consideration the need for important consultation and valuable input from its stakeholders.

Back in 1996 representatives from industry, first nations, community groups, outdoor tourism associations, recreational groups and conservation groups met with provincial government officials to outline a plan for future protected areas.

As a result of these consultations, the government introduced a comprehensive protected area strategy. This is a significant achievement that came about through a comprehensive, consultative process.

Bill C-236 would have us ignore the achievements of all these stakeholders by specifically excluding them from any future consultation process surrounding the establishment of the Stoltmann wilderness area.

The bill calls upon the federal minister to enter into negotiations with the Government of British Columbia to determine precise legal boundaries for the proposed park. There is no mention in the bill of any opportunity for stakeholders to have any input whatsoever in determining boundaries for this park. This is totally unacceptable.

I am not convinced that the introduction of Bill C-236 came as a result of any major consultation with stakeholders. Both British Columbia ministers of forestry and environment have already expressed opposition to the bill, as have representatives from industry and first nations. The bill lacked a strong basis of support even before it made its way to the floor of the House of Commons.

The Progressive Conservative Party understands that creating new national park protected areas is very difficult and time-consuming. However, it is important to have a full consultation process in place so that we can identify appropriate conservation areas that will have the support of the large majority of Canadians.

Only by working together and consulting together can we develop a new national park in which all Canadians can be proud.

Bill C-236 is seriously flawed in this respect. Therefore, for this reason and those stated previously, we cannot support the proposed piece of legislation.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-236, which concerns the establishment of the Stoltmann National Park in British Columbia, because I think this proposed national reserve meets three key objectives which are dear to Canadians.

The first objective, I am pleased to hear, if this park is created, would contribute to the protection of biodiversity. This is a commitment Canada made at the biodiversity convention and has provided leadership on globally.

This park would protect a rare habitat, an old growth coastal Douglas fir forest. The Douglas fir is extremely well-known in Canada but there is less than a few percent of this old growth forest type that has been left unlogged on Canada's west coast.

The park includes trees of remarkable age and size, including Douglas fir trees, which are over 1,300 years old, Canada's oldest known Douglas firs. As primary forests become increasingly rare planet-wide, increasing attention is placed on how countries are managing the remaining old growth stands.

Canada would face criticism, not only from our citizens but from people around the world, if we were to continue cutting down thousand year old trees in this new millennium.

As mentioned previously, the park would not only protect trees but would also protect the essential old growth habitat of a threatened population of west coast grizzly bears. I will not mention all of the animals that were mentioned before.

A second objective of importance to Canadians is ensuring that our economy is strong and full of a wide range of opportunities for our citizens as we enter a new millennium.

At a time when rural areas are losing their populations to the cities, those who remain in the rural areas are concerned about diversifying their local economies. This project would provide the greatest stability for the future, in particular for ecotourism. Rural Canadians are concerned about the concentration of wealth and economic opportunities in urban areas. National parks can be part of the answer since they bring people from urban areas to rural towns and regions.

As the member for Davenport noted, economic studies of the benefits of Banff National Park point to a good possibility of significant employment and economic opportunities to Squamish and other communities in the region of the projected park. These regions have suffered employment decreases in traditional resource sectors over the last few years.

A Stoltmann national park, therefore, would greatly strengthen opportunities for small business, ecotourism and tourism development in the Squamish-Whistler-Vancouver corridor, especially in conjunction with Whistler's 2010 Olympic bid.

The third objective important to Canadians today that Stoltmann national park achieves is the opportunity for first nations to co-operatively manage a part of their traditional territories in a manner that benefits the environment, the regional economy and their own communities. Squamish first nations leaders have indicated publicly that they do not want to see areas like the Elaho Valley in the Stoltmann wilderness logged.

I should mention that in my riding of Laval, we also understand the importance of the environment as well as what it can bring us both from a personal perspective, for example from the perspective of health, and from an economic perspective.

Laval will provide a 40 kilometre portion of the green way, a bikeway network that goes around the whole of Quebec. Laval will take part in this project by harmonizing its own network with the green way network.

This will help Laval keep its place among the cities that have played a pioneering role in the ecotourism industry, one of the industries with the best record on sustainable development.

This is a very important bill. Even though it may have been presented by someone out of the province, it has been presented by a member of parliament who thinks about ecotourism and economic development. After all, British Columbia is a province of Canada and I see no wrong in having another member of the Canadian parliament present this private member's bill.

The bill is timely and would create the kind of national park reserve that we could all be proud of. Canadians have indicated that they want to see greater protection of their national heritage. We have a responsibility to ensure that protection is afforded before it is too late.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-236, an act to amend the National Parks Act. It specifically deals with the Elaho Valley near Squamish.

In the case of this private member's bill from the member for Davenport, the Liberal government is on the record as not being in favour of it. I also happen to know that the NDP member from New Westminster is not with the member on this bill, even though he can usually be relied upon to promote preserving forests in British Columbia, the taking of land from the working forest and putting it into the preservation of the forest. The province is certainly not in favour of the bill. There is a very long history to what has gone on in this valley.

I have been in this valley and in this area. I had an invitation from the union to travel to the area. I have also travelled to the area with some European parliamentarians, and with the member for Davenport as recently as September of this year.

To put it all in some context, I have worked adjacent to Pacific Rim Park and to what was then the germination of a national park in South Moresby. Both are in the same region, one of the 39 regions identified by Parks Canada as regions requiring national parks. There are already two parks in the region that are also represented by the Elaho Valley. There are other regions that have no national parks. Rightfully, the priority of the department of the government is not in this region.

B.C. has turned itself inside out in terms of land use planning, particularly on forestry issues. British Columbia has been targeted by people around the world as an area of great beauty, of great forest resources and of special forests. Consequently, the United Nations targets were adopted quite some time ago; 12% preservation. We currently exceed that number already on the coast of British Columbia, the very area covered in the bill.

We have an enviable track record. One of the things that must be considered, and the member for Davenport said it, is that this area is three hours drive from Vancouver. There are individuals in preservation oriented groups who have decided that they want to create their own domain at public expense in an area they can easily access close to Vancouver. Because 95% of the B.C. forest land is publicly owned and because provincial governments tend to respond to the public, coastal B.C. has now reached this 12% target through a public consultation process. That is the way it should be done.

There is a very strong message that can be delivered. As Canadian representatives in Europe, when we talked to European parliamentarians this spring, we talked about the fact that we have been so responsible with our forest practices in British Columbia, in Canada in the Canadian context that we tend to be targeted because we do have this substantial old growth reserve virtually across Canada. Many countries have totally diminished that old growth reserve. We are never going to get there because of our very responsible practices.

What the bill tends to do is promote continued agitation. The reality is that there are protesters in this area. I have visited the protest site. From the very site where the protest was being carried out, I could see the 30,000 hectare Glendenning Park that has just been established to satisfy land use concerns in that area. I found this most disconcerting because any users that wanted to have that old growth experience only had to go there instead of where they were.

I talked to members of the union who were working in that area. They are very frustrated. They have had months of head games and attempts to incite a response by these very professional agitators. It is not a very nice way to spend a day trying to earn a living.

In summary, the 30,000 hectare Glendenning Park does a more than adequate job. There is no great public pressure on it at this point as there is on hundreds of thousands of hectares of other preserved areas on the B.C. coast. We need to balance the environment and the jobs. This is what the provincial land use planning exercise was all about. We have gone through that in the 1990s.

I can only wonder why the member for Davenport is trying to upset this balance that we have now achieved on the coast of British Columbia.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak briefly to Bill C-236, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from Davenport.

I believe everyone knows that our national park network, as it now stands, is appreciated by all Canadians. However, it is not quite completed, and this is what I want to discuss.

Before 1970, we did not really have a network. It was a network in name only because at the time locations were selected somewhat haphazardly. We then embarked upon a very elaborate process to develop a master plan to set up a national park network. It was determined that Canada had 39 unique and natural ecosystems that deserved to be included in the Canadian national park network.

So far, we have been able to include in our network 25 of these 39 distinct and unique ecosystems in order to preserve them for future generations. There are 14 other regions where we have yet to create a national park that would include quite a substantial sample of the ecosystems and natural areas we want to protect.

The question then is the following: Does the hon. member's bill cover one of the 14 geographical regions that need to be preserved and protected? Unfortunately, the answer is no, because there are already two national parks near the location where the hon. member wants to establish another park.

From what I gathered from the comments made earlier by the hon. member for Davenport, he essentially hopes that we are guided by the long term.

“That we are guided by the long term” were our colleague's closing words when he introduced his bill. I would like to believe, as we established in 1970 a plan that would protect 39 of the ecological zones in Canada which were distinct and had to be protected—and we have achieved 25, with 14 remaining—that we have been guided by the long term.

Again, I say to the member that the area that he is proposing be included in the national parks network already benefits from two national parks in that very area.

If we are to be guided by the long term, as he suggests, and I agree, as does the government, then perhaps our efforts should be concentrated in finding and establishing national parks to represent the 14 ecological zones or regions that are not yet protected within our network of national parks.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the British Columbia government has moved to protect some of the land mass that our colleague would like to see protected within a national park. I am advised that three of the areas which are mentioned in the proposed bill are under some protection from the Government of British Columbia.

All this is to say that, indeed, we are being guided by an established plan, which everybody buys into, to protect for the benefit of future generations 39 ecological zones, 39 zones of natural geography and climate, that are representative of the majestic geography of Canada. We should finish achieving that objective in the 14 geographic regions that are not yet in that network. Therefore, it is not within the priorities of the government to proceed with the establishment of the park suggested by our colleague in his private member's bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There are 10 minutes left in the time provided for Private Members' Business. Seeing no members rising, the member sponsoring the bill, the hon. member for Davenport, will have five minutes for his response, and at the termination of that five minutes the debate will cease.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member for Ottawa—Vanier, the member for Vancouver Island North, the member for Laval West and the members for Brandon—Souris and West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for their interventions and for their comments.

I will deal first with the claim that the area is already represented by other parks. I am particularly addressing the member for Ottawa—Vanier who, with all due respect, is not on the right track.

The current national parks system, as he mentioned, uses a framework of 39 regions for the purpose of planning national parks. The Stoltmann wilderness area is located in the Pacific coast mountains region, the natural region No. 1. Two parks called Gwaii Haanas and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve currently represent this region in the system.

The two parks are beautiful. They certainly deserve protection and they have received it. Both parks are located, however, on islands off the mainland coast. They are not located in the coast mountains. This is the very ecosystem that these two parks are supposed to represent.

Therefore, I submit respectfully to the parliamentary secretary, that there is a very legitimate reason for proposing this park: this particular region on the mainland is not represented.

Second, we have the rather spurious and unfounded argument by the member for Brandon—Souris who tossed out his conclusion that this is a bad piece of legislation because consultations are not included in the legislation. The legislation is intended to provide a broad framework, a concept for the establishment of a park. The regulations then set out the process of consultations which are natural and most essential in the formation of any national park.

At this stage, when logging is taking place and the roof of the house is on fire, we are certainly not going to put consultations first on paper and then into legislation. We first need some form of legislation that will allow the consultations to take place.

I will move swiftly to the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, who has, I must say, a rather insular view of an MP's role. He thinks everybody should sit in their own little cubicle in downtown Toronto or uptown Montreal, or safely in the harbour of St. John's, and the rest of Canada does not count; it does not matter what happens there; we are elected like municipal councillors; and we should not take a view of the nation or the country as a whole. Well, that is his privilege.

I invite him to visit Davenport and give us advice on how to establish a Stanley Park, for which we envy Vancouverites all the time when we manage to visit Vancouver. In my case, I am an adopted British Columbian considering the number of times I have crossed the country to visit it. I have been in this particular area twice.

It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate from downtown Toronto to look at what happens on either coast or in the Arctic, and for members from British Columbia to tell us in Toronto how to improve our industrial set up, how to reduce pollution, how to improve on our public transit, anything.

I invite the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to visit Toronto. I would be glad to take him out to a spaghetti dinner and introduce him to a lot of very interesting people who know how make wine at home.

As to the position of the department, let me add that 15 years ago the department was also indifferent to the creation of South Moresby. It was extremely difficult to convince the department to take to heart the creation of a park in South Moresby.

However, because of people like Speaker Fraser, other people who were then in government and some of us in the opposition, that park eventually became a reality many years later. These processes are very slow and complex. The political rewards cannot be seen by the same generation but perhaps can be harvested by the next one.

The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast rejects this initiative. He rejects native concerns. He rejects the tourism potential. He rejects the habitat protection. He rejects even the remarks of the mayor of Squamish. I am told that during the election debate Mayor Lonsdale said she would look positively at the proposal if an economic study recommended it and if more jobs including replacements for displaced forest workers were created than lost. This is a very responsible statement by the mayor. I must congratulate her.

Also the concerns of Chief Williams must be put on record. Chief Williams opposes logging by Interfor in the Elaho Valley.

The member for Vancouver Island North made a reference to the adequacy of what has been done so far. The Elaho Valley is the heart of this particular area. It is the most valuable habitat of the entire valley. Without the Elaho heart we would lose the real significance and the real potential from the habitat potential point of view, from the ecosystem point of view, that the entire valley has. It would amputate the valley. Half of it would become clear cut and the other half along the slopes of the mountains would remain, thus depriving the habitat adequate protection.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sure other members join me in allowing the senior member of the House of Commons what time is necessary to wrap up as we did not want to rush it.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 6.28 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.)