Debates of Dec. 11th, 2014

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her contribution to today's debate.

I would like her to remind us of the importance of Canada's national parks and their role in protecting our environment and our heritage, and in enabling the greatest possible number of Canadians to discover the beauty of the landscapes, flora and fauna that exist in these parks.

Does she believe it is important to protect these parks and ensure that they operate properly, with the human and material resources required to ensure that they are well maintained, sustainable over time, and useful to all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer has two parts. I mentioned the first one when I began my speech. Canada's flora and fauna are found all over Canada and are part of our identity. As Canadians, we must protect our resources, which are our most valuable assets. People come to Canada to see our green and open spaces. I have a lot of friends and family members who live in Europe, for example. When they come to Quebec, to Canada, they tell me how wonderful Canada is. The flora and fauna are part of our identity and we must protect our identity.

Moreover, protecting the environment is not only important for tourism, but also for our children and our future. Protecting the environment and our parks is a way to make sure that our children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy what we have enjoyed in the past and are enjoying today. I believe that conservation is fundamental not only for our identity as Canadians, but also for our children and grandchildren, so that they can continue to enjoy our green spaces the way we do today.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey North.

Since this is my last speech in the House in 2014, I would like to wish all of the employees of the House a happy holiday. I will not name them all, because I am afraid I would forget some. I wish the same to my colleagues, certainly, and of course to the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

It is my pleasure today to speak to the bill to amend the Canada National Parks Act. More specifically, it concerns the Nááts'ihch'oh national park reserve of Canada. Please excuse my pronunciation, since I do not speak that language fluently. The park is located in the northern one-sixth of the South Nahanni River watershed in the Northwest Territories.

Obviously, as all my colleagues who have spoken today have said, the NDP supports the creation of this national park. Of course, we are never opposed to initiatives like this, since we are concerned about the preservation of local plants and wildlife.

However, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the public wanted a bigger park, the Conservative government has chosen to give in to the demands of the mining industry by excluding areas that are essential to the survival of wildlife from the park and allowing mining in those areas. In my opinion, this is truly appalling. The Conservatives have completely failed to listen to the communities and have no regard for the needs of the people who live there. However, we are starting to become accustomed to this kind of practice on the part of the government.

The aboriginal peoples in this region have long recommended, in discussions about land use, that the area proposed for the national park reserve be preserved. That concern about preservation is also consistent with the Government of Canada's commitment to protect the ecosystem in the greater Nahanni region and preserve the ecological integrity of the area. If the government does not act to preserve these fragile ecosystems, who will? I do not know.

Consultations showed that the public overwhelmingly supported the creation of a larger park, as I said earlier, but the Conservatives basically disregarded public opinion and decided to protect the smallest of the three possible areas, failing to include some very important wildlife reserves. It goes without saying, but it seems to have to be said anyway: Canada has a particular wealth of plant life and wildlife. As we approach the year 2015, we cannot allow ourselves to endanger plant and animal species. That is what happens when we neglect such important things.

In opting for the smallest area, the Conservatives listened to the mining companies and simply turned a deaf ear to local residents, who know their region and their land and the species they share it with. It is particularly appalling that their opinion was so completely ignored. Yes, they were consulted, but they were not listened to. That is pure negligence.

We support the creation of the park, but we question the government’s motives. We are afraid that the land area of the park will not be sufficient, particularly because areas that are essential to caribou breeding and the water sources for the Nahanni River will not be protected.

I would also like to add that there is no sense in creating a national park without the funding that is needed to maintain it. On that point, the Toronto Star reported in December that Parks Canada had a backlog of nearly $3 billion in deferred work. That is a rather substantial sum.

We are talking about the environment, fragile ecosystems, plant life and wildlife. That $3 billion should have been invested appropriately. There should even be more money invested in these kinds of things.

In its November 2013 departmental performance, Parks Canada noted that aging infrastructure and inadequate funding and maintenance were a high risk for the agency. Here again, as I said earlier, this is a matter of negligence.

The Parks Canada departmental performance report also said that over $17 million allocated to heritage resource conservation and $22 million intended for townsite and throughway infrastructure was not spent in 2012-13. I consider that to be serious.

According to the Commissioner of the Environment, there is a wide and persistent gap between what the government commits to doing and what it is achieving. Is the government going to honour its commitments? Here again, we do not know. Even for the smallest area, will the commitments be honoured? We still do not know. We are in the dark.

The budget cuts have had serious consequences, including the loss of 33% of the scientific staff complement. Sixty out of 179 positions have been eliminated. Those positions were genuinely essential. We know that the government does not like scientists very much and we can see that here in these results. The figures are rather glaring.

It is disturbing to see the pattern of broken promises the commissioner notes, such as the commitments to change course and ensure protection that never materialized. Will this commitment materialize? Is there going to be any follow-up? Will this park be left by the wayside? I would very much like to know.

If we add to this the money allocated for park infrastructure in the 2013-14 budget, the picture is even bleaker. In that budget, $391 million was allocated over five years for repairing buildings, roads and dams that are falling apart. That amount is not enough to catch up, but it gets worse. The funds that the government plans to invest in the short term are completely ridiculous. In 2014, it plans to invest $1 million. I spoke earlier about a backlog of $3 billion, but here they are talking about an investment of $1 million. In 2015, they plan to invest $4 million, and after the election, $386 million. That is bizarre. I will say no more on that count. I will let people think about it all.

To conclude, yes, we support these kinds of initiatives, because we are concerned about protecting the environment. Obviously, we cannot be opposed to something positive. It is crucial, however, that local populations be consulted. The government cannot just hold consultations for fun and to be able to say they were held; the people have to be listened to. The communities’ welfare and wishes should come before the welfare and wishes of big corporations, as well.

The government also has to inject the needed funds into maintaining these parks. As a final point, we must not do things in half measures when it comes to protecting the environment. Future generations will thank us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague fromSaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her remarks.

She spoke at length about the significance of the resources to be allocated when national parks are established. There are already a dozen national parks in the North. However, because of the budget cuts and also because the funding allocated by Parliament was not spent, everything affecting the promises, possibilities and potential for parks is currently being neglected.

My particular fear is that we may be missing a good opportunity with the creation of this new park—one we support—without providing the necessary resources, not only for preservation and conservation but also for the science side. Providing additional funding and resources might help us learn more about what can be found in the park and what we can learn from it. In short, we may be missing an excellent opportunity.

I would simply like to know, in fact, whether the member believes that the Conservative policy, which consists of not spending all the funding allocated by Parliament, makes sense in a context where, of course, the government may be getting back to a balanced budget? From another perspective, however, do we not risk missing an opportunity to realize the full potential of, for example, the national parks, and in this case, the park mentioned in the bill?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we actually have a big problem with respect to the potential of these parks where, as my colleague was saying, we can learn a great deal about our fauna, our flora and our country.

This is an incredible treasure for Canada. We have landscapes that are literally breathtaking. It would be so sad if, because of budget cuts and a lack of funds, these resources and sites were neglected and not conserved. That would be absolutely unacceptable.

We should also stop hiding behind the need to balance the budget. A healthy environment and a protected ecosystem are beyond price. We are talking about future generations. That is particularly unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for her response.

In her speech, she mentioned another concern, namely the fact that a good part of what was planned for protection has not been protected, particularly because of mining interests. Obviously, environmental and the economic considerations must always be reconciled and we recognize that, except that the local people who were consulted favoured the option of a larger area.

I would like to hear the comments of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot on the importance of conducting consultations, respecting the results of those consultations and trying to reach individual agreements with communities that really need those jobs in order to survive, but are also in a position to make the comparison and strike a balance between the environment and the economy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this case, clearly, the public was consulted but not listened to. It is a government’s duty to put the well-being of local communities and their residents ahead of industry. There is no doubt that some industries have to locate in a given area because of the jobs, and I understand that very well.

However, it is a different matter when the public is deciding on the surface area of a park. The people were very clear when they told the government that this was the area they wanted. The government chose the smallest area to benefit the mining industries. That is a big problem. The community was simply ignored and was consulted just to make things look good.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North on this very important bill, Bill S-5, which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create a national park reserve for Canada. The name of the park that would be created in the Northwest Territories is Nááts’ihch’oh.

It is an honour, on days like today, to work together in the House and look to future generations. I think of the times that my son and daughter, and my whole family, would spend in our national parks.

I have had the opportunity over the years to visit both provincial and national parks, which are important for our communities. I know that people in my community enjoy the parks that are part of Surrey North. Therefore, it is an honour to support the bill before the House, which would create a national treasure.

Members speaking before me have talked about the gift that the aboriginal first nations people have given to all Canadians. I want to thank them on behalf of all Canadians, and particularly on behalf of people from Surrey North, for giving this wonderful gem to Canadians for generations to preserve.

I have thought about travelling to that part of the world. I listened to our NDP member from the Northwest Territories who always speaks highly of the areas in the Northwest Territories. I am hoping to get the opportunity, along with my children, to go and see that part of the world.

Of course, we need to preserve these parks for our future generations, as well as the habitats that are part of our wilderness and make us unique. Canada is a huge country with many parts to it. One of the things we can do is to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to enjoy this wilderness. We must preserve it not only for future generations to see but also for the animals inhabiting those areas, so that they can roam free and live in their natural habitat.

There were three options of area that were considered in the creation of the national park. Unfortunately, the Conservatives chose the option that had the smallest area, and I think there are some concerns about that from a number of people who were involved with the consultations. They had preferred the larger option for the park; however, the Conservatives chose the smaller option. Yes, it is a step in the right direction, but there was an opportunity to further enhance the park reserve. However, I am still happy that we at least chose an option that would provide a national park for generations to come.

I come from British Columbia, and I know the role tourism plays in its economy. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs created through tourism across this country. It is a way to diversify our economy, especially since we have seen commodities fluctuate in the last number of weeks, whether oil or other commodities. For example, oil has gone from $147 a barrel a few months ago down to about $61 this morning. Therefore, it is important for us to diversify our economy; and tourism is a natural for Canadians, as I know it is for British Columbia. There are many jobs attached to tourism, and creating parks like this can help to enhance the natural beauty of Canada and also diversify our economy with tourism-related industries.

Unfortunately, so many times I have seen, whether with a crime bill or a veterans' bill or a bill relating to first nations, the fact that we can make all the laws in the world that we want in creating things like parks, but there has to be funding available. There has to be money provided to ensure that some of the things we are doing in the House are carried through. That requires resources.

We know from reports that Parks Canada basically has a backlog of about $3 billion in maintenance work that needs to be carried out and that money is not available. That money has not been provided or allocated by the current government. If we are going to create these parks, we need to provide the funding to maintain these parks to ensure that we are doing everything we can so that these parks can function for generations to come.

Again, going back to how reserving a national park and how tourism can work hand in hand, my colleague talked earlier about the importance of tourism. He pointed out a number of other countries, such as Australia and France, that are actually making investments to increase their tourism.

However, what we have seen from the Conservative government are cuts to tourist-related programs aimed at attracting more tourism to this country, especially in British Columbia, where we have some of the finest skiing mountains in the world. They are right in our backyard. Some of them are a couple of hours away from Vancouver and some are actually minutes away from downtown Vancouver.

I understand the importance of tourism and how it plays into our economy. We can always do more to increase tourism.

Obviously, we support the creation of this park.

When we consult first nations and local people, we can achieve a lot of good. I have seen, in this particular case, the government work with the first nations, the Sahtu Dene and the Metis, in the Northwest Territories to work out an agreement to create this wonderful park. That is what we get when we consult people. When we consult people at the ground level, when we consult the very people who are going to be affected, the result is usually good.

Unfortunately, the current government, time after time, fails to consult the local people. We can see what is happening with the Rouge park in Scarborough, the urban park that is being created there. The consultations have gone sideways and many people in the community are opposing it.

Again, I want to thank the people of the Northwest Territories, the Sahtu Dene and the Metis, for giving this gift to Canadians at Christmas.

Talking about Christmastime, I know that my son is waiting for me at home. We are going to look for a video and find out how much it costs. Then we are going to appeal to Santa and, hopefully, it will be in his stocking or under the tree.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all Canadians and, in particular, my constituents in Surrey North, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's comments. He touched a bit on consultation. Yes, there has been some consultation, but at the end of the day they actually wanted the better option. It was basically a take-it-or-leave-it option they ended up with. Of course, they want to see an expansion, and that is fabulous, but it would have been much more appropriate for the bigger one, the first option. It would even have protected the calving areas within that park.

Again, I just want to go back to the consultation. We see that there is now a new national chief, National Chief Bellegarde, who said during his speech that business as usual with Canada would end. Again, that talks to the consultation piece. He went on to say, “If our lands and resources are to be developed, it will be done...on our terms and our timeline.”

Maybe my colleague could speak to the importance of consultation. This was a step in the right direction. Now if they could continue down that path, things would be a lot rosier.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question about the importance of consultation.

I know there are three options in this particular case. When we were looking at creating a park in the Northwest Territories, of course the Conservatives chose the third option, which includes less land than the first two options. A lot of the stakeholders in this particular consultation wanted the first option to be chosen.

Even with that, yes we have a park. It is not as large as what the majority of people want, but I want to pay respect again to the people of Northwest Territories, who are giving a gift to Canadians by allowing this park to be reserved. We can achieve things when we consult with individuals and first nations. It is our constitutional obligation to consult with first nations when it comes to land-use issues, minerals, commodities and their extraction.

Time after time we have seen the current government fail to consult, and the Supreme Court has instructed it a number of times to consult with first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer my colleague to a quote from the report that was undertaken and instituted by Parks Canada. It states:

A frequently expressed comment in the Sahtu region consultations was that it does not make sense to have a national park reserve if you also allow mining to exist in the watershed. Participants stated their distrust of the mining industry and environmental assessments to protect the natural environment, concerned that the impacts of mining would be harmful to the watershed downstream.

I ask my colleague, how important is it to ensure that we protect the ecosystem? Is the member in agreement that there would be an opportunity to expand that at a later date?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes the member from the Northwest Territories and aboriginal people have wanted to have a larger park, and yes, the Conservatives did create a smaller park. They actually rechecked the boundaries to ensure that some sort of mining activity could take place many years from now.

The member is absolutely right. The activities in those zones just outside the park will have an impact in the park, because animals do not know boundaries and go from one area to another. There is a breeding ground in an area where there could have been a park, yet the Conservatives carved that outside of the national reserve proposed by this bill.

I hope there is an opportunity to ensure, not only for future generations but also for some of species, a natural habitat in the parks in the Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada they can benefit from in the future.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place today to speak on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto at third reading of this important bill. It is important in a number of different ways.

As many of my colleagues have already underlined, we will be supporting this bill. However, in my last speech of the year, it is important to reflect on what we can learn from this bill and its process, including what it says about the Conservative government.

It is true that we have had much debate on the bill and the various decisions that were made leading into third reading. What I would like to focus on, though, is the process and the fact that, once again, we see the government not listening to the very people who should be a vital part of the process. It brings me back to my own constituency in Toronto. I would like to talk a little bit more about some flaws in the process and connect it to the bill.

I just want to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

We have significant infrastructure projects right across the country. I will focus on the riding I represent. We can talk about the Line 9 project. Currently, we have a project that is running dirty diesel trains from the airport to Union Station in Toronto.

We have a variety of issues where the public has been unable to weigh in on and have an impact on the decision. For example, in my own riding, we have a nuclear processing plant that has been there for 50 years. We are supposed to have a full public engagement program, and people living right across from the plant did not even know that the program existed, because the government has said that it is not going to play the public engagement card too strongly. It sees that as an impediment to it doing the things it wants to do.

Fundamentally, what we are saying on this side of the House is that if we do not have social licence or if we have not consulted fully with first nations, projects simply cannot go forward. For example, if we want to run a large piece of infrastructure through a heavily populated community like the one I represent, and we are going to run that infrastructure using 19th century diesel technology that the WHO has ranked up there as a carcinogen similar to arsenic and mustard gas, we need to talk to the people who are going to be living right there. We need to get their buy-in, and if we do not, we have to find a way through. We have to consult. We have to listen, and listening is not something that the Conservative government likes to do. We saw this with this very park proposal.

I would also like to talk a little bit about the deficit in infrastructure improvements and how that is also part of a trend. Just in case my hon. friends across the way think that the deficit issue with regard to parks is a one-off, unfortunately it is not. We saw in December 2013 the Toronto Star reporting that there was an almost $3 billion backlog in deferred maintenance at Parks Canada.

The Conservative government loves to cut ribbons. It loves to announce big projects, but it is really not interested in supporting the infrastructure and improving it.

We have billions of dollars of infrastructure deficit in the city of Toronto. We have a public transit system that was built for 1960s population use. It is about twice the requirement now.

The government loved to pop by, especially when its buddy Rob Ford was the mayor, and cut some ribbons and popped some champagne when the Prime Minister wanted to help him out by putting some federal money into public transit. However, the problem is that we have a huge operational deficit. What cities, municipalities, and certainly the city of Toronto, need is a government that realizes that it cannot just come up with a big-time capital announcement. It has to be there for the whole project.

Therefore, it concerns us that the government does not understand the need for long-term, sustainable funding. An example is the need for public transit across the country and certainly in my city.

This bill and the process show a very disturbing trend by the government. It is trend that we will most certainly see change after the election in 2015 when we can make some significant changes with the first NDP government in the history of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that I am getting most of the questions. I am kind of dumbfounded that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are even engaged in this issue. That is quite problematic. At the same time, my colleague fully understands the environmental aspect of this and our pristine wilderness.

I would again like to quote from the report. This is from the report that came out of Parks Canada's own consultation process. It states:

It was suggested by participants that protecting the water should be a higher priority than obtaining the employment and financial benefits of mining...While some participants saw a balance of economic and conservation values as beneficial...many others felt that mining should not be allowed at all in the watershed. It was suggested that the key concern in deciding on the boundary should be the conservation of wildlife and water.

I know in the riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, which comprises 17 first nation communities, when it comes to water, the environment and their youth, who are their future, that is key. Could my colleague speak about the fact that these are things that we have to take very seriously when we put bills in place and that this consultation has to occur around these pieces?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very important question. Ultimately, the question revolves around a matter of trust. The government has implemented bills that instead of strengthening environmental protection for our lakes, our rivers, our streams and our oceans have actually weakened them. It has gutted the public process regarding pipelines. Then it turns around and hectors the opposition for raising questions about which, quite frankly, Canadians across the country are incredibly concerned. Fundamentally, the government has lost the trust of Canadians when it comes to large infrastructure projects.

When it comes to protecting vital resources, and what could be more vital than our water, the government has consistently shown an aversion to public participation, and for transparency and for accountability. For those reasons, it will find it increasingly difficult to gain the social licence that is required for these big infrastructure projects.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat baited to pose a question. I do not know if the former questioner has been sleeping, but I can assure her that I have been asking questions. The Liberal Party gave a speech earlier today, and questions have been asked throughout the three hours of debate.

One of the questions I asked was with regard to the creation of the Nááts’ihch’oh park. It was created back in 1972, and the prime minister back then was no other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who established the park. This is not to say that the Liberals own the idea. We need to recognize that when a national park is developed, a lot of people come to the table, in particular first nations and other stakeholders.

I have made reference to the fact that we need to acknowledge the efforts of many who have ultimately led to what we have today: a bill. The Senate brought the bill forward, but at the end of the day, it took a great deal of effort by a lot of Canadians to ensure that Bill S-5 would be here today.

Would the member like to acknowledge the efforts of individuals outside of the House of Commons who have made this bill possible?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member was trying to ask. I believe he was trying to retroactively claim some kind of responsibility.

I will focus on the key issue, which is social licence, accountability and transparency. Let us focus on the fact that if the Conservatives want to run a pipeline, create a large piece of transit infrastructure, or convince Canadians, for example, that they are sincerely guarding the environment, then they need to give their heads a major shake.

There are significant concerns around the protection of our environment. This is not a rural-urban issue; this is an issue about which all Canadians are concerned. As reflected in this bill, the government still does not take these issues seriously at all.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill S-5. As has already been said in the House, the NDP supports the creation of national parks and the preservation of ecosystems and habitats that are essential to the survival of plants and wildlife.

Consultations revealed that the public overwhelmingly supported creating a bigger park. Unfortunately, the government ignored public opinion and decided to protect only the smallest of the three potential areas, neglecting to include very important wildlife areas. Witnesses spoke about the park.

For example, the hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew, chairperson of the Sahtu Secretariat, said the following:

The Sahtu Dene and Métis support the establishment of the park. We maintain that any park in the settlement area must be created and managed in partnership with the Sahtu Dene and Métis and based on our cultural traditions, spiritual values, and economic aspirations.

I believe it is timely for me to talk about our proposed national park in the south Okanagan's lower Similkameen.

Ever since my election in 2006, I have been in contact with those opposed to the proposed park as well as those in favour. There is no question that the vast majority of my constituents in this area want some form of protection for this pristine area. However, there are differences as to how this can be accomplished.

After listening to both sides, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to preserve this fragile ecosystem is by means of a national park. Failing to do so will leave these areas under threat of mining and development regardless of what safeguards the provincial government of the day implements. Although a great deal of work has been done by Parks Canada to move this process forward, there has been some dissatisfaction with the process.

As a result of political pressure, the current B.C. Liberal government has withdrawn its support for a national park. In my conversation with our previous minister of the environment in 2012, I was reassured, however, that should the position of the provincial government change, the federal government would once again get involved in the process. This is encouraging news. I would like to thank the federal government for its commitment.

I would also like to quote from a letter that Ms. Doreen Olson, coordinator of the South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Network, received from the federal Minister of the Environment in December of 2013. It states:

I would like to assure you that our government recognizes the important role that Canada's system of national parks plays in providing Canadians with meaningful experiences and opportunities for discovery. Since its creation over 125 years ago, Canada's system of national parks has continued to grow, and our government has put significant efforts into increasing Canada's protected areas.

Our government is committed to ensuring that our national parks continue to provide Canadians and visitors the means to connect with our country's national heritage.

This gives us hope. The key now is for the government of British Columbia to re-engage in the process.

There have been a number of concerns about the proposed national park, the most serious being the lack of first nations' involvement on a government-to-government basis.

Since then, the Okanagan Nation Alliance has conducted a feasibility study and found that it is:

—feasible to explore further discussions with Parks Canada about a future National Park Reserve, so long as Syilx Title, Rights and interests are protected and respected. The Syilx Parks Working Group advocates a collaborative and consensus based model with Parks Canada similar to those in Gwaii Haanas.

There are two other concerns: the ability of our local helicopter school to continue training in the proposed area and ranching. While both of these issues have been addressed by Parks Canada, they could and should be a vital part of any negotiations between the provincial and federal governments.

It should be noted that there is a growing overwhelming support for the national park from the Okanagan Basin Water Board, Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen, Regional District of Central Okanagan, Regional District of North Okanagan, Town of Osoyoos, city of Vernon, British Columbia Wine Institute, Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, South Okanagan Chamber of Commerce, and tourism associations such as Oliver Tourism and Destination Osoyoos, as well as a number of environmental groups such as the South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Network.

In addition, thanks to the former mayor of Osoyoos, Stu Wells, the Union of B.C. Municipalities passed a resolution in support of the park. There is also support from the City of Greenwood. A resolution was passed, stating the following:

The City of Greenwood fully supports the re-engagement of discussions between the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada, towards the establishment of a new National Park in the South Okanagan-Similkameen; and asks to be consulted throughout the process to ensure that we are partnering in economic development, tourism, and business development strategies and programs.

I would also like to issue a big thanks to Dan Ashton, Penticton MLA and chair of the province's all-party Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for his support. The standing committee recently completed its report and has recommended that the province work with the federal government and local stakeholders to assess the feasibility of, and support for, the establishment of a new national park.

I should add that as was pointed out in previous statements and questions, it takes a long time for this process to take place. It takes many stakeholders, and I firmly believe that the time is right for the Government of British Columbia to re-engage with the federal government to get this process moving so that we can leave a legacy for the future.

Last but not least, I would like to single out and thank Doreen Olson of the South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Network for her years of tireless efforts in promoting the establishment of a national park. I do not know how many meetings I have had with Doreen or how many meetings she has had with other folks, but I would just like to thank her and those in her organization for their effort.

The B.C. Minister of Environment, Mary Polak, recently visited our area to consult with residents, and I thank her for doing so. I had written the minister in November of 2013 asking the Province of B.C. to formally re-engage in negotiations with the Government of Canada and first nations. So far we have not had a positive reaction from the government of B.C.

We have a chance to do something right for future generations to come. I strongly urge the Province of B.C. to re-engage with the federal government and first nations. We have a potential win-win situation: the protection of our environment, tourism dollars for our area, a beautiful opportunity for people from all parts of the world to come and visit this pristine area, and, of course, full-time employment, which will certainly support our local economy. We cannot allow ourselves to miss this opportunity.

I strongly urge the Government of British Columbia to work with the federal government and to re-engage with the federal government, first nations, and other stakeholders to make the national park in the South Okanagan-Similkameen happen.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his remarks. He seems to be very much in tune with the concerns of his constituents. I believe he is also aware of the importance of parks, whether municipal, provincial or national, as is the case in this bill to establish a national park.

I would like to know what importance he attaches to parks and to the resources allocated to them. Earlier, I put the question to another of my colleagues. According to my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, what importance do national parks have in terms of protecting our environment, our fauna, our flora, as well as our heritage and our history in Canada? Why should we provide them with the necessary resources to discharge the mandate entrusted to them?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question.

It is obviously important to protect certain places in our country for the future. I want to emphasize what I said in my speech. In my opinion, the best way of protecting them is to create a national park.

Where I live, the talk is about provincial protection led by people in the area. However, if we do that and protection is not provided at the national level, there is always the danger of mineral development and increased pressure on such and such a government—regardless of party affiliation—to allow the development of houses and other things.

When we take this approach, we are not doing it for today. We are doing it for the future of the grandchildren of my colleague from Sherbrooke and their grandchildren, who will be there to benefit from the fact that we have a network of national parks across Canada. I encourage the federal government to continue to work with the provinces and others to develop the national park network in our country.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, many of the previous speakers have suggested that the only factor the government should have considered in setting the boundaries was the result of public consultations.

I want to ask the hon. member if he would not agree that the views of the Northwest Territories should be considered as well. Should we not consider the investments and rights of the mining companies who employ the people? There has to be more taken into consideration than just the results of the public consultations.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is a logical one.

However, I think we often tend to make decisions based on short-term gain in our country. Here we need to look at the long-term gain, the long-term potential of pristine areas. That is why I would like to submit that this park that Bill S-5 represents is smaller than the people normally would have wanted it to be because of the pressure from the mining industry.

I would like to submit that there is room for mining and room for development, but we have to look to the long term to ensure that we protect these pristine areas. Otherwise, there are not going to be any of these areas left for us in the future.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

Bill S-5 would create a national park in the Sahtu region of the Northwest Territories. For geographical reference, the region is centred around the Mackenzie River and stretches towards the Yukon boundary with an incredibly beautiful mountain range and the magnificent wilderness of the Northwest Territories.

I had the pleasure some years ago to live in the Northwest Territories for a number of years. I can tell members that when I say the “magnificent wilderness of the Northwest Territories”, indeed that is what it is.

I guess we could think of this park perhaps as a Christmas present for the Sahtu Dene of the Northwest Territories, but there is a Scrooge there too, and I would like to talk about the Scrooge.

There were three options that were set out for the park. Option 1 was a total area of 6,450 square kilometres. It was developed to best protect conservation values while providing an open area around the existing mineral interests. Option 2 was a total of 5,770 square kilometres, which diminished the achievement of conservation goals and allowed more mineral potential to be available. Option 3, which is the one that was chosen by the Conservatives, was the smallest proposal, with a total area of 4,840 square kilometres.

Not everybody was happy with that third option. I will read a quote from Alison Woodley, the national conservation director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, or CPAWS. She said:

Creating a new national park in Canada is always welcome news. But this boundary does not reflect the extensive scientific evidence of what’s needed to protect the ecological integrity of the Nahanni watershed, nor does it reflect the overwhelming support that was expressed for protecting the Nahanni headwaters during the public consultations.

That is just one example.

I do not want members to get the idea that we do not support national parks. Of course we support the creation of parks, but we question the government's motives, and we have some concern with the size of the park, including the omission of vital caribou breeding grounds and the lack of protection for source waters for the Nahanni River.

Section 16 of the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim agreement sets out the terms and conditions for the establishment of a national park in the Sahtu settlement area. Included in these terms and conditions are several clauses for review of the plans for the park after a period of not more than 10 years. I say this because whichever government replaces this particular one next year will have a responsibility to ensure that this plan is reviewed as it moves forward. In fact, these sorts of plans should be like the veterans charter, for example. They should be living documents that continually get looked at.

Another person who was not very happy with the option chosen for the park was Stephen Kakfwi, the former premier of the Northwest Territories. He is quite disappointed in the way the boundary lines were drawn. He said in an interview that the Prime Minister is protecting the mining interests more than environmental interests. I will quote directly from an interview on August 23, 2012:

He’s taken the heart right out of it. The middle of it is carved out, so that mining can happen, dead center in the middle of this proposed national park.

There is another Scrooge here, and I use “Scrooge” in particular because, quite frankly, creating national parks is an empty gesture if there is no funding to go along with it.

In December 2013, the Toronto Star reported that there is an almost $3 billion backlog in deferred maintenance in Parks Canada. Of course, budget cuts have had a huge impact. Budget cuts have led to a 33% staffing cut in science in Parks Canada, which means that 60 out of 179 positions have been eliminated.

Add the 2013-14 budget announcement of spending on infrastructure in parks, and the picture is even more bleak. This year, meaning 2014, the government will spend on national parks—remember, I just said there is a $3-billion backlog in infrastructure—$1 million.

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

Let me finish with a quote from our member for the Northwest Territories. He was speaking on the funding for national parks, in the House of Commons. He stated:

Across the entire north, there have been sacrifices on a number of occasions with national parks. What have we seen out of that? We saw the loss of over 64 positions throughout the three northern territories. The three northern territories carry 12 national parks in Canada. Twelve of the 44 national parks in Canada are in those three territories. The commitment of the people of the north to national parks is large.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River is very well attuned to wilderness, given the part of the country where he actually lives. He talked about the mountains and about the magnificent wilderness.

I will give another quote from the Parks Canada report, in which an elder says:

The beauty and importance of the Nááts’ihch’oh area was highlighted by many consultation participants in the Sahtu. They stated that the area was very important to peoples of the Sahtu, Dehcho and Kaska.... One Tulita Elder described the mountain itself...as sacred to these peoples....

When we talk about wilderness, the current government talks about consultation. It says it listens but, at the end of the day it took option three, which was the lesser option, whereas everybody wanted option one.

Maybe he could elaborate on the fact that we need to take consultation into consideration when it comes to sacred ground or the issue here where the elder described the mountain itself as being sacred.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that strikes me about this park, and one of the things that is really lacking, is the whole issue of protecting watersheds and everything that goes into those watersheds.

Members may not know, but just south of my riding, in northern Minnesota, not very far from my riding, there are three North American watersheds that meet. There are always commercial interests that want to shift water from one watershed to another or want to divert water from one watershed to another.

While I am no scientist, I do know that moving water from one watershed to another watershed is something that should not be done.

Protecting watersheds, just like in this park, is most important