Debates of June 9th, 2000

Canada National Parks Act

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-27, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 3 with the following: b ) the government of the province and the local government body in which”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-27, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 3 with the following:

“province and the local government body in which the lands to be included in”

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-27, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 5 the following:

“(3) For the purposes of maintaining or restoring ecological integrity, the Minister shall, where applicable, a ) work cooperatively with federal and provincial ministers and agencies, local and aboriginal governments and organizations, bodies established under land claims agreements, representatives of park communities, private organizations, individuals and landowners in or adjacent to a park; and b ) participate in the development and implementation of processes and programs that may reasonably be expected to affect ecological integrity, including research, education, land use planning and environmental assessments.”

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-27, in Clause 10, be amended by adding before line 1 on page 6 the following:

“(2.1) An agreement entered into pursuant to paragraph (2)( b ) must take into account any traditional supply of water from the park.”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-27, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 6 the following:

“(1.1) For greater certainty, the Minister shall provide opportunities for public participation in respect of a ) the determination of an increase in fees, rates, rents and other charges for the use of park resources and facilities, and b ) the control of access to parks by air.”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-27, in Clause 33, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 22 the following:

“(1.1) A person who is a member of or who has a proprietary interest in the lands included in the park community is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be consulted and make representations in respect of the development and approval of the community plan for the park community.”

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-27, in Clause 40, be amended a ) by replacing line 41 on page 26 with the following:

“40. (1) The application of this Act to a park” b ) by adding after line 44 on page 26 the following:

“(2) The application of this Act to a park reserve is subject to traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge and recognition of the integral role that such knowledge plays in the traditional renewable resource harvesting activities of aboriginal persons.”

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to debate Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks act of Canada at report stage.

The Canadian Alliance have made a number of amendments to help improve the legislation in the following areas: First, to strengthen democratic processes as well making it more inclusive; second, to help the parks administration become more accountable for its decision making; third, to recognize the traditional historic rights to access water from a park; and fourth, to make sure that park wardens have all the resources needed to do their jobs.

Let me being by saying that our amendments to clauses 5 and 6 will make the consultation process much more inclusive by including local government bodies in the text. We at the federal level always talk about municipal governments and how important they are but rarely do we include them in our legislation. It is irresponsible for the federal state to not recognize local government bodies throughout the act.

I still remember the present Prime Minister, in June 1996 at a FCM Calgary convention, telling the folks how important the municipalities were in Canada. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, the municipalities are all still waiting to be acknowledged. Perhaps accepting this amendment would be a good start.

The Canadian Alliance amendment to clause 10 by adding the words “traditional supply water from the park” will recognize the historic rights which existed prior to the formation of the park. This amendment will break the gridlock between Parks Canada and Dauphin, my home town. Dauphin has drawn water from the Riding Mountain National Park since the early 1900s, predating the existence of the park. Today the water source of the town is the same. Over the last decade, under my watch as the former mayor, an agreement could not be ironed out. Recognizing the traditional rights of the town will be a big help in finalizing an agreement with the park.

Having the ability to draw water from a park does not mean it is potable. In 1995 Dauphin was inflicted with a water emergency much like Walkerton, the only difference was that the infected did not die. They became very sick from drinking the park water. We found out that the water was contaminated with a micro-organism called giardia. The source of this giardia were the beavers in the park. A boil order lasted for almost two years until a new water treatment plant was constructed. The giardia is still in the water from the park.

Our amendment to clause 12 states that for greater certainty, whenever fees, rents, rates and other charges for the use of park resources and facilities are increased, the minister shall provide opportunity for public participation. In others words, the people must have a say whenever an increase is levied. The public must have input to decisions that are made which affect their pocketbook. If they do not have input, it is taxation without representation.

The Canadian Alliance amendment to clause 18 ensures that park wardens will have access to all resources that are required, including the possession of a firearm for the enforcement of this act and the regulations in all parts of the Canada, and for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace in parks.

Ten out of eleven provincial natural resources organizations equip their officers with firearms. I ask members to put themselves in their shoes before opposing this amendment. These officers have families and love ones like you and me, Mr. Speaker.

Our next amendment to clause 33 mandates that as a person who is a member of or who has a proprietary interest in the lands included in the park community is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to be consulted and make representation in respect of the development and approval of the community plan for the park community. In other words, if the park user has an interest in the park, then they need to have access to decision making. This in essence calls for democratizing the decision making process.

The Canadian Alliance's last amendment deals with the whole issue of air safety. This issue has been debated for too long. Small aircraft flying through the Rocky Mountains need alternate landing strips in case of emergency. This is the reason that all airstrips in national parks should be in operational condition. COPA has been lobbying for this change for too many years. This amendment was made for the purpose of public safety. The air facilities in national parks should be open at all times. The saving of one life is worth supporting this amendment. As a pilot who has been flying for over 30 years, this amendment is about saving lives, and I ask my colleagues for their support.

As Canadians we all love our national parks. We all use national parks in different ways. Some of us like to use the beaches and some the campgrounds, some like to see the town sites and some the wilderness areas, and some like to take part in the nature programs. Parks and people go hand in hand. Can anyone imagine a park without giving people access?

Having travelled and consulted with most of the western park communities, what I found disturbing was the lack of trust in Parks Canada by both seasonal and full time residents of national parks. People want to be treated with openness, honesty and respect. I do not think this will happen unless this legislation mandates compulsory consultation and accountability. The problem at this time is that the buck does not stop anywhere. I believe checks and balances are needed to ensure that the buck does stop somewhere.

In closing, I say that our amendments were made with the objective to improve this bill. I ask all members for their support to these amendment.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during second reading of Bill C-27 on national parks, the Bloc Quebecois indicated that it was in agreement in principle, but that it intended to raise some important concerns. First, there was the issue of maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity of parks, and the question of the time limits for the examination of ministerial orders with respect to amendments to certain schedules of the proposed legislation, which we feel are too short.

There was also the issue of respect for the rights of communities living within or near parks and, finally, the designation of historic sites, without consulting provinces or municipalities.

Following representations made to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage by the various interested parties, the Bloc Quebecois moved twenty or so amendments. The committee agreed to include a definition of ecological integrity in the bill.

We would also have liked clause 4 to deal more directly with this issue of ecological integrity, but we are happy that clause 8 stipulates that the minister's first priority shall be matters of ecological integrity.

The committee extended the time limit for examining ministerial orders to amend certain schedules to the legislation from 20 to 30 days. This is no guarantee that the committees responsible for these matters will be convened, but it reduces the risk considerably and we are satisfied.

The issue of respect for the rights of communities living within or near parks has not, in our view, been entirely resolved. However, clause 12 has been considerably improved so as to require the minister to encourage the public to participate in the development of policies and regulations that might concern it.

In addition, I must point out that, thanks to the intervention of the member for Manicouagan, the representations from inhabitants of the Mingan Archipelago were well received. Thus, in accordance with the wishes expressed by its inhabitants, the Mingan Archipelago has been added to the list of parks in clause 17 of the bill in respect of which the minister may make regulations regarding the exercise of traditional renewable resource harvesting activities. Besides, the limits of the park in the Mingan Archipelago will be, for each island, at the high water mark, as the representatives of the area wanted it to be.

On another topic, clause 42 of the bill provides that the governor in council may set any land as a national historic site to commemorate a historic event or preserve a historic landmark.

At first sight, these provisions appear desirable and harmless, but a closer examination shows that the minister could intrude, without provinces and even interested municipalities being aware, on sites and historic sites and deal with them and develop them the way he wants without necessarily abiding by town planning, zoning or any other municipal bylaws or provincial regulations.

There is a risk that a quiet neighbourhood might be transformed over night. A historic town centre could become a federal property, one building at the time, and the whole of it would become free from any obligation relating to provincial regulations or municipal bylaws. This is unacceptable in my opinion.

The Bloc Quebecois moved in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage an amendment proposing that such acquisitions should at least be approved by the provinces or province involved. The amendment was rejected by the Liberal majority.

This is why, and we will come to that later, I move that this clause be withdrawn, as it creates this type of risk for our provinces, municipalities and populations. If the House does not withdraw this section, I urge all provincial legislatures to legislate in order to subject to the approval of a provincial minister all real property transactions that would result in the transfer of a site to the federal government for the purpose of making it an historical site.

In this way the transaction could be made, but the provincial government and the municipalities would know about it and would be able to take steps to ensure that those transactions are respectful of the people and the authorities concerned.

To conclude, the Bloc will support the bill as amended at report stage. We will, however, be carefully monitoring how Parks Canada, whose priority must be the preservation and restoration of the environmental integrity, is carrying out its mission .

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and speak on the amendments to Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks of Canada.

During this portion of our parliamentary role at second reading, I would like to state our appreciation for the outstanding levels of co-operation during the committee hearings and the support from Canada Parks personnel and their input in making our jobs as parliamentarians possible throughout the legislative process.

I believe that parliamentarians and the national parks should be above politics, and that the thrust of this for future generations will be toward a better future for our national parks and our national treasures.

I call on members on both sides of the House to work together toward a strong and powerful act that can create a positive future for the integrity of national parks and the viability for future generations to look forward to preserving our national heritage.

We will be supporting the bill and seeking the amendments that we have put forward to this point. Our first group of amendments is issues of clarity. Our second group of amendments is issues of concurrence. I would call on members to support those amendments as well.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in the House to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, an act representing national parks. Before I begin to address the motions I should like to take a moment to express some of the frustration and disappointment I have felt with the government in the way it has tried to push this piece of legislation through the House before the end of the session.

For instance, a couple of weeks ago we were notified that we would be debating Bill C-27 at second reading the following Wednesday. Late on Thursday afternoon we got a call that we would be debating Bill C-27 the next day. I was fortunate that I was present and could participate in the debate, but some of my colleagues were not able to do so. That is the type of thing that takes away from the good will in the heritage committee and from the ability to properly participate in the process.

We saw some of this going on in committee when we had to sit extended hours for two or three days just so that we could listen to all the witnesses that had to come before us. I am not bothered by the fact that we had to work extended hours but I felt we had to rush and could not properly do all that had to be done. It meant that we had not only to listen to testimony but also had to study and read transcripts. The period of time to do that was too compressed and took away from our ability as parliamentarians to do our work in the proper way.

I congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River for submitting his thoughtful amendments. I only regret, however, that he chose to withdraw the same amendments from the heritage committee during clause by clause consideration where we would have had the opportunity to debate them to see exactly where he was going with this piece of legislation and his amendments.

I thought some of the amendments that the member made were quite reasonable. When he refused to put them forward at the heritage committee I began questioning whether the member had changed his mind and now agreed with the government's position on the particular clauses.

Enough about that. Let me touch a little on the motions before us, in particular Motions Nos. 1 and 2 introduced by the member for Dauphin—Swan River. These motions would have the federal government seek agreement with the provinces and the local governing body when creating or enlarging a park.

Like the member for Dauphin—Swan River, I also was concerned with ensuring that people living within the park communities had a chance to take part in the discussions and have input, but the problem arises with the ability to define local government and to describe exactly what it means.

Banff has its own government. We know that the federal government would not like to see that. We recognize that Jasper really did not want that type of thing but wanted some input into the process. The difficulty lies in defining exactly what local government is.

Motion No. 3 was introduced by my hon. colleague from Churchill River. This motion further highlights the extent to which negotiations must be undertaken with all stakeholders.

We introduced an amendment during clause by clause consideration by the heritage committee that would specifically include commercial interest as part of the negotiations. The government changed the clause such that we could support what it did that would make the process broader to include commercial interests as well. This amendment would serve to strengthen the consultation process.

Motion No. 4 is an amendment again introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. It would ensure that the federal government could not cut off the traditional supply of water to adjacent residents. With the focus on ecological integrity, maintenance and restoration, this could possibly come into play. It is not a bad idea. It is there to ensure that the supply of fresh water remains constant.

Motion No. 5 was also introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. I like this amendment because it gives local residents a greater say in determining the increase in fees, rates, rents and other charges for those who use park resources and facilities. Since this affects them directly they should have a say in it.

It might also help prevent the astronomical increase in property taxes that the people of Jasper are now being threatened with. Perhaps through public input we could determine an appropriate cost for entering our national parks areas that will be affordable to the average Canadian. We want all Canadians to be able to enjoy our national parts. That is what national parks are all about.

Motion No. 5 concerns the control of access to parks by air, which again was introduced by my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River. I know he is an avid pilot who has been flying for years. This issue had been dealt with in the past by the removal of an airport at Banff. It is my belief the landing strip should be maintained for emergency purposes just in case it is needed. It should be maintained for those purposes.

Motion No. 10 was introduced by the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River. We would like to encourage participation by all stakeholders in any decision making process. We want operators of our ski hills to have an equal say in the future of their industry. As any homeowner or business owner, they have a role to play in the creation of a community plan.

Motion No. 13 was introduced by the hon. member for Churchill River. I am not certain it reinforces the rights of aboriginal people to carry on their traditional renewable resource harvesting activities. The language of the government better addresses this concern. However we do not dispute the aboriginal peoples right to carry on their traditional harvesting in park reserves.

In conclusion, I thank the House for allowing me this time to speak to these motions and to the reworking and preparation of Bill C-27.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not be very long.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from all parties who are members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the excellent work they have done.

I believe that we had a good discussion on Bill C-27. We heard many witnesses and, on the whole—I suppose that everyone is not satisfied in terms of the measures they wanted—the committee met the concerns expressed during the hearings.

For example, for the aboriginals, we included a notwithstanding clause and made other amendments in reply to certain concerns that were expressed. We did the same thing for ecological integrity. Each opposition party wanted a definition of this concept. The government suggested one, which was amended and which obtained the unanimous assent of committee. The same thing happened in terms of the concerns expressed by the communities living in the parks.

We tried, in clauses 10 and 12, to partly follow their recommendations, by ensuring that they will be consulted and that the minister can conclude agreements with a variety of groups, including business interests, among others.

I believe we really met the concerns of those who made that presentation. For the benefit of my colleague from Portneuf, I must make a small correction concerning the Mingan Archipelago.

This is not a big deal, but I want to mention that the reason the government fully endorsed and followed through with the proposals of this community is mainly the quality of the delegation we received and of its presentation. The members of the delegation were very warm in the way they convinced us of the legitimacy of their proposals. I believe they convinced everybody.

True enough, their MP made representations, but the quality of this group had a lot to do with the government's decision. I wanted to make sure the people from Mingan knew that it is in great part due to their work that they will be satisfied if the bill is passed. I do not want to guess what the House will decide. I wanted to make sure they knew it.

Finally, I want to mention that in the first group we will support Amendment No. 4, but none of the others. Again, overall, the concerns raised by the opposition parties and by the groups that appeared before the committee were listened to. We amended the bill to reflect them in a positive way.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost on division.

(Motion No. 1 negatived)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.