STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 2000

• 0911

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,

[Translation]

which is meeting today to begin clause-by-clause study of Bill C-27,

[English]

an act respecting the National Parks of Canada.

I would like to welcome Mr. Tom Lee and the senior officials from the ministry who are with him.

Before we start, I'd like to thank all members for their cooperation in starting this meeting early. I tried, at the request of Mr. Laliberte, to reach him on the weekend. We exchanged messages. But if by any chance there is something you have to delay, we can always stay a clause and move on to the others so that you are given time if it is necessary. We certainly would not put you on the spot.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I would like to ask the question again: when will the minister appear before the committee?

The Chairman: Maybe I'll ask the parliamentary secretary if he knows. As far as I know, I don't know that we have set a time for the minister, but maybe he could answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Committee members will recall that the Minister was to come before the Committee, but we decided instead to meet with the CBC president. In passing, I would like to congratulate all committee members on the influence they have collectively had on the Board's decisions. Since we prefer to meet with the CBC, the meeting with the Minister was cancelled, and there is no other meeting scheduled for the moment. I believe it was to study the...

The Chairman: The financial statements.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Exactly, Mr. Chairman. The House Standing Orders state that if these have not been considered by the Committee before May 31st, the House deems that consideration to have taken place. The Minister is out of the country today and tomorrow, and it would therefore be impossible for us to consider the financial statements before the end of May.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Would the parliamentary secretary entertain the idea that the minister appear after May 31?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll entertain any idea, Mr. Chairman, but it's not my decision; it's the minister's decision. But again, it's impossible for us to do estimates after the time they have to be examined by this committee. Otherwise, they are deemed to have been dealt with by the House. That will have to be the circumstance because the minister is not in the country and tomorrow is the last day of May.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, perhaps we could just have a congenial visit with the minister.

The Chairman: Yes, sure.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll certainly convey that wish, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: By all means, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: The other point I would like to raise, Mr. Chair, is that I will not move any of my amendments today.

The Chairman: You're not moving any amendments today.

Mr. Inky Mark: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): On the issue of the bill that's before us again, and I know you highlighted that we didn't communicate over the weekend, but I wanted to express our view. We haven't had a chance to look at witnesses' responses specifically to the bill, and time and time again through the witness process we asked for written submissions to explain their perspectives and their views on specific clauses and the views they brought forward.

• 0915

I know the clause-by-clause is scheduled for one day today. Is it the chair's view that the witnesses who may be sending anything in writing would be overlooked in this process? It is a very important bill dealing with the national parks. It's a unique opportunity for this committee, and we would very much like to create an act that best serves Canadians, that best serves the integrity of the parks that exist and new parks to come. To create a new act at this time is a significant process, but in my view it seems if we had taken a bit more time we could have had more ammunition from the witnesses; we would have had more opportunity for our parks' representatives to strengthen and clarify a lot of the wording in the parks bill that seems to be all over the place. I know today will be a rough ride through the rapids to try to clarify it in terms of wording, the legal wording.

I wanted to state that in our view we understand as chair that you want to create the whole aspect of legislation on the move on the Hill, but I believe that as far as the perspective of Canadians is concerned...we would have appreciated more time.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, I can respond to this. First of all, there are some groups who didn't produce written briefs, which they are fully entitled to do; that's their own choice. I've personally been in touch with some of these groups who have appeared, for instance the aboriginal people, because they hadn't produced a brief and they had made many suggestions for amendments. I asked them if they were ready to produce briefs, if they needed time, and it looks as if they didn't have the resources to put everything together.

So I put them in touch with the ministry people to discuss the amendments and see what the government was proposing and where they agreed, so that we would sort out a lot of the problems. When we go over the amendments today, I think you're going to find that many of these questions will have been addressed and attended to.

Where we feel that more time should be given to address certain issues that might still be open, then we'll deal with that when it comes. I can assure you that the intention is twofold. First of all, it is to proceed and get the best bill possible. At the same time, I can assure you that I have received many representations, especially from conservation groups, from those who feel the bill is a strong bill. It needs amending, of course, but they don't want it to be delayed so that it goes into the hopper and stays there until the fall, and goodness knows what happens then.

I think there's a very strong feeling among the people on the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks, among the conservation groups, and all the various actors who have been involved in the bill, that they want it to proceed. I think when you go over the amendments, and I think it will be good to have the background of the ministry officials, you will find that a lot of your questions will be answered. If time is needed to stay a clause, or two or three, so that we get more feedback, then we will do that. We don't intend to ramrod the thing through so you end up dissatisfied on behalf of one group or another. I can assure you that this will be the case.

Mr. Laliberte, it was pointed out to me by Mr. John Craig and Joseph Jackson, the two researchers from the Library of Parliament, that they have made a summary of all the various recommendations that appeared before us that were not actually listed, which they gleaned from the transcripts.

Has this been circulated

[Translation]

in English and French?

• 0920

[English]

So it's there.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is the 28-page document that was circulated this morning?

The Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: And this would formulate some response to wherever the clause-by-clause takes us today?

The Chairman: What they have done is set out the summary of recommendations as well as concerns by witnesses who appeared before the standing committee. They have gleaned them from the briefs and also from the oral testimonies. All of them are summarized there, so when we get to these various clauses, we can look at them and see if they have been addressed in the amendments presented by yourselves, by the ministry officials, and by the government. Then we can start a discussion, and when it gets to be clause 2 or clause 4, we'll look at this summary to find out if the recommendations have been addressed. Okay?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you.

The Chairman: I can assure you we just want this to be a harmonious process. I think this is the way we will function here, and I think you're going to find that the work done so far has been very thorough.

So with this, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Lee. Do you have anything to say before we start clause-by-clause, Mr. Lee?

Mr. Tom Lee (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada): Very briefly, just to confirm, we have tried to deal with every proposal that was before us and to give it deep consideration. In the process we have had dialogue with all major organizations, ranging from the aboriginal people to the NGOs, to some of the commercial proposals. The dialogue has gone back and forth, and on the whole it's my feeling that what we will present here today largely represents a consensus position.

One of the more remarkable things about the amendments we have is the consistency that is occurring, even amongst the parties, in various proposals, and it's interesting, we all want to define ecological integrity. We're very consistent in the pattern, and I think largely the task that is before us is to accommodate the various views that are there, and I think we're in a position to do that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

I will now refer members to the agenda of the meeting. We'll follow the order of the agenda of the meeting, so we'll start with saying that pursuant to Standing Order 75(1),

[Translation]

consideration of clause 1 is deferred until later.

[English]

Consideration of clause 1 is postponed. We now look at clause 2 of the bill.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

The Chairman: There are several amendments to clause 2. I think it seems obvious to members, but I'll just mention that the NDP clauses are referred to as NDP-1, 2, and 3. The government is G, the Bloc Québécois is BQ, and PC is the Progressive Conservatives.

I now call NDP-1 on clause 2.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In clarifying the process, Chair, would I move this before discussion?

The Chairman: I was wondering if we could look at the various amendments, because if one carries, it might affect the others. We're going to proceed with the adoption or rejection of each amendment as it comes up, but if committee members would like to have an informal discussion on the amendments that covers the same subject first, so that we know, for example, after discussing it whether we should pick one or the other in preference, then maybe that's the answer.

Mr. Bélanger.

• 0925

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw members' attention to government amendment 2, G-2, which essentially is a definition of “ecological integrity”, as has been suggested by the NDP and by the Bloc, or by the Bloc and by the NDP, in the proper order. So the essence of the request for a definition is an acceptable one.

The question then becomes the definition itself. The one we've put forward, as you'll see in G-2, is less technical in nature and is one that, from discussions Parks Canada departmental officials have had with environmental groups, is preferred. We can get into some technicalities and into the differentiation between “deemed characteristic”, which would throw in there something subject to a lot of interpretation, and the words we've used, “determined to be characteristic”, so that we're talking about actuality and not what might be or is supposed to be.

The definition we've proposed has also been referred to the members of the ecological integrity panel, and my understanding is that they too have given us their support of the definition that is being proposed in G-2. So it's not that we're against the notion of what the NDP attempts to do, but we believe the definition being put forward in G-2 is more appropriate, and that also seems to be the view, from what I gather, of environmental groups and the ecological integrity panel.

The Chairman: In this slew of amendments listed here, there are some that cover the same substance. I think it would be really wise to have a general discussion without moving the amendments so that each bloc—for instance, the Bloc Québécois—could speak to its own that is similar, so that eventually we arrive at some sort of consensus. Then when the amendments are moved, one might fall away and the other one will get adopted, because, as stated by Mr. Bélanger, it might represent a more comprehensive definition or it might be a definition preferred by most interveners.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): In the definition proposed by the government, the French uses the word "vraisemblablement"; in English, we have "likely". I see that the Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois are proposing the same definition. This is a fortunate coincidence. The legislative counsels probably consulted each other, but, in any case, the definition is the same.

This definition expresses ecological integrity for what it is, not what it likely or possibly is, but what it is. Where the legislation refers to ways in which ecological integrity must be respected, dealt with or managed, subtle distinctions will be made as required.

What pleases me less about the government's amendment is the word “likely”. When something is defined, there is no question of it being likely. For example, if I am rich, there is nothing likely about it; I am either rich or I am not. If I am talking about water quality, I define water quality; I do not put in the word “likely”. That is the word that bothers me in the definition. It seems to me that that word should not be in a definition.

[English]

The Chairman: Do you have any comments on the government side?

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the proposed amendment NDP-1 in French. Wait a minute, here it is.

There is an expression here that has basically the same meaning: “deemed characteristic”. Here again, we are not necessarily talking about an actual situation. We are talking about a “deemed characteristic” or, in French, “l'état jugé caractéristique”. We are trying to avoid that word. We prefer, I am saying this again for the benefit of my colleague, to use simpler, more direct language, and that is what we have before us. We have even tested it. We did not invent it. We tested it with environmental groups and members of the ecological integrity panel. Those people agree that the definition that we are proposing, with its simpler language, will give rise to fewer complications and interpretations than the formulation in motion NDP-1. That is why we are insisting on having amendment G-2 passed.

• 0930

This is the key point, and we acknowledge it. It was on the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois, Mr. de Savoye in particular, the New Democratic Party and the other parties, that we included a definition of ecological integrity.

We did our homework. We came up with a definition that works for the representatives of environmental groups and the members of the ecological integrity panel. There is nothing underhanded or slippery here. We did this in the spirit of openness and we prefer this definition, as do the other groups that I mentioned. The language is simple, clearer and less open to interpretation by one side or the other.

We will not be supporting amendment NDP-1. We will support amendment G-2, which comes down to the same thing: a definition of ecological integrity.

The Chairman: I would like to point out to committee members that NDP-1, BQ-2 and PC-1 are the same definition.

[English]

When we speak of one of these motions, it's the same motion. We agree with that. It will save a lot of time and trouble.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: For the record, the definition proposed here by the three parties... When I met with the legislative counsel, I asked him to take the definition that was in the report on ecological integrity. So, this definition did not come out of thin air; it comes from the panel. One could argue that the panel does not have the right definition and that the government's definition is preferable, but I wanted to be clear that I did not invent our definition.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, the definition being proposed this morning, which was tabled Friday with the clerk along with the other government amendments, was presented to the members of the panel and they accept it. They feel that this is a good definition because its language is less complex. It is simpler and more direct.

If we did not have the support of environmental groups, we would not propose this definition.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, you asked to speak.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): This might be just my opinion, but I feel we're watering down the definition. Monsieur Gérin's report had a definition everyone seemed to like and could work with, and it's strange that all members of the opposition seem to agree for a change, yet the government says it's the same thing. Well, a car's a car, but there's quite a difference in cars. I think there's quite a difference in this definition.

Thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Maybe we can get into the detail of that definition to demonstrate that's not so.

Mr. Mark Muise: That might be a very good point, Monsieur.

The Chairman: Do any of the officials want to comment?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, I'd like to ask Bruce to talk to this.

The Chairman: Mr. Amos.

Mr. Bruce Amos (Director General, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When looking at a possible definition to include in the legislation, we looked at the panel report. The panel report has actually two definitions, one a more detailed technical one and another one in, I think they use the reference, layman's language. We were looking for a definition that could be used in legislation, which was not necessarily the purpose of the panel when they put a definition in their report.

We worked with key members of the panel who were directly involved in this part of the panel's work, namely defining “ecological integrity”, to come up with the one here. We generally worked from the plain-language version, which refers, as you can see in G-2, to “the ecosystem's supporting processes and native components”. That's derived from the plain-language version of the panel's definition, rather than the longer one, which contains a number of elements.

• 0935

As Mr. Bélanger has indicated, we've not used the words “deemed characteristic”, because the lawyers inform us a deeming provision in a bill has a particular meaning, which essentially is giving something a meaning it would not normally have. So we felt the word “deemed” was not appropriate and should be replaced by “determined to be” for that reason.

In terms of the phrase “are likely to persist”, this is an attempt to make sure one takes a long-term view of what ecological integrity is for a national park. One needs to read this with subclause 8(2), which is later, but if I may remind members, subclause 8(2) as proposed in the amendment would require the minister to maintain or restore ecological integrity as a primary consideration. I won't go through the rest of the clause.

The intention of the words “are likely to persist” is that the minister's obligation in subclause 8(2) would be to maintain or restore a condition that is likely to persist, not merely to maintain or restore a condition that is characteristic of a region, which is where the other definition puts the emphasis. This would give a longer-term sense to the definition, and when read with subclause 8(2), it would give the sense that the minister would be giving consideration to a condition that is likely to persist, rather than a condition that is not defined in terms of its longer-term persistence.

The other distinction I might make between the two definitions, Mr. Chair, is this. The definition in G-2 refers to “supporting processes and native components”, and the words “native components” generally written will include both biotic and abiotic components—that is, both living and non-living components—of the ecosystem. In contrast, the alternative definition, for example in NDP-1, if I may, is a fairly strictly biological definition and wouldn't necessarily be broad enough to include abiotic components of the ecosystem. So it's felt that the more general wording, “native components”, is a more inclusive definition for this purpose.

The Chairman: I wanted to point out to members too, if you refer to this text prepared by the researchers, on page 24 it says the panel appeared before us, and they proposed a wording too:

An ecosystem has integrity when it is deemed characteristic for its natural region, including the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes.

So there have been several ideas.

Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I don't know if this is possible or not, but can you clarify for me an example of a supporting process or native components that may not be likely to persist? Could you give us an example of these processes that are unlikely to persist, and therefore it's not in the minister's discretion to define them as...? That seems to be the problem, this word “likely” or “unlikely”.

Mr. Tom Lee: A number of items are illustrated in State of the Parks Report and the panel report.

One could say unless action is taken in Banff National Park, grizzly bears are unlikely to persist as an element of that ecosystem. One could move to southern Ontario and say in Point Pelee Park, unless we are very diligent, aspects of the Carolinian forest will disappear over time. They have been, and unless we're diligent, they will continue to. So there's an example of an ecosystem that is in a state of change and requires stabilization.

• 0940

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Therefore, using your words or going back to the definition of “ecological integrity”, it wouldn't be the prerogative, with this definition, to protect the grizzly bears of Banff National Park because they're unlikely to persist. Is that correct?

Mr. Tom Lee: No, because you have to relate that to the subsequent clauses of the bill. So you define it, and then you say the minister's obligation is to give that ecological integrity a priority. It would be the first priority in management decision-making, and try to do all we can to help that condition persist.

The Chairman: I'll ask a question to Mr. Amos to make sure I understand the gist of his remarks, because I hadn't seen it this way and now I can see where the potential is.

What you're suggesting, Mr. Amos, is that by putting the word “likely” there, you actually broaden the impact by saying something that is “likely to persist”, as to attract attention rather than something that exists, so that it give a comprehensive definition. So whatever is likely to happen, which is potential, does relate to the definition of “ecological integrity” so that the impact is broader rather than restrictive. Is that what you were suggesting?

Mr. Bruce Amos: Mr. Chair, with your agreement, may I ask Nik Lopoukhine, who is the director for the ecosystem branch, to speak to that specifically?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine (Director, Ecosystem Branch, Parks Canada): The notion of “likely to persist” is to try to give some breadth to the range of consideration. In the context of defining “ecological integrity”, if we look in the short term, it's much easier to define that than it is in a broader context, that is, “likely to persist”. If we are trying to set some objectives, we're trying to ensure that the objectives will indeed not be a short-term perspective but a longer-term perspective.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Responding to the term “deemed” in the government's recommendation, “deemed” is replaced by “determined”. That's the oranges to oranges. On the “likely to persist”, in the short version from this recommendation it says “intact” in the plain-language definition from the ecological integrity panel. And the whole definition of “intact” goes on to say:

including the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes.

That's a complete definition, an awareness of the whole principle of what “ecological integrity” is. That's why it's defined in clause 2 here. It's not a specific definition that then breaks out into a definition; it's also a guiding principle for the bill. That's why a complete definition is required.

On the “likely to persist”, you can go wild with that perception. We have Wapusk National Park where the polar bears are likely to persist. One of them might wander to Wekusko park, so he might likely persist over there too. So this whole aspect of “likely to persist” is any organism that might find itself in another of the 39 natural regions.

The longer version defines the whole ecological integrity as the panel had brought forward to us. I think the plain-language explanation was just an editorial note, the way I interpreted it. Somebody tries to get to the point of the ecological integrity definition, but the broader version is much more suitable for legislation.

Just to exercise this issue of staying, if we stayed this clause, when would it stay till? Would it be stayed until the end of the day for us to review it or have somebody else look at it, or are we extending this process of staying these clauses just to know the technicality of staying a clause?

• 0945

The Chairman: Within reason. We have to appreciate that all the various parties have had a chance to look at this clause. This clause and subclause 8(2) are connected and they are the gist of the bill. So we can stay them till this afternoon perhaps, but we aren't going to stay all the clauses forever, that's for certain. Then it's just an exercise in marking time. If you want to think about it for a while and come back this afternoon, yes, we can do that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What's catching us a little off guard here, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, is that there was some consultation taking place with the ecological integrity panel. We would like to know if this was, I guess, a preferred or an acceptable definition?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I was not party to those discussions with members of the ecological integrity panel, so perhaps we can hear from people who were.

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine: I was the one who spoke with the members. To be fair, the members had views that diverged from the current definition that's in front of you as well as the definition that they put into the panel report. There was a great deal of discussion around that definition. They compromised and they recognized that they had to put something forward.

We expressed to them our concern about the word “deemed”. They understood that. We also expressed to them the interest in trying to reduce the lengthiness of the definition for the purpose of legislation. It was understood on that basis that what we were proposing was acceptable.

The Chairman: I can understand what Mr. Laliberte is getting to. Are there any particular members of the panel you spoke to, and who should they consult to get their reading of it?

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine: Dr. Tom Nudds and Dr. Steve Woodley were the principal proponents for the definition in the panel.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It seems to me that the government was stuck on “deemed”. Was that the main stumbling block here? You've addressed it in the new definition that you've proposed as “determined”? Why couldn't we just put “determined” as opposed to “deemed” in our definition? You go on to “likely to persist”, which is changing course. It's totally different. You've bundled our definition and put “likely to persist”, and I think that bundling wasn't required. I think if you were stuck on “deemed”, we could have gone to “determined” and stayed with the bundled definition.

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine: The addition of “likely to persist” is only trying to address an assurance that in fact what would be determined would not be a short-term perspective. There would be a longer-term perspective in the determination, or, in the panel's words, “deemed”. In other words, we wouldn't be looking at what there is today but at a longer period. This would ensure that when we're indeed setting some objectives for a national park and for ecological integrity, it would actually occur over a longer period of time.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: A number of arguments have been made for why the government's definition would be preferable to the one proposed by three of the opposition parties. We are told that it would be shorter and that, for legislative purposes, it is more concise. This is certainly the first time I have seen concern in legislation about the need to be more concise. I would venture to say that this may not be the best approach.

You have also said that the English term “deemed” may not be the right word and that the word “determined” is better. In French, the word “jugé” is used in both cases. Should the legislation be written in French? Then we could agree on the formulation.

In other words, I understand all the arguments, but they do not demonstrate clearly that the government's proposal is superior to what has been proposed by the three other parties. In fact, the opposite is true, in my opinion. If we were to vote on this, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you quite frankly that I would vote with the NDP and the Conservatives, since we have the same definition. This definition comes from a panel that was paid to do many things, and its report has been duly received.

I am not saying that the government's definition is basically bad; it has merit. What I am saying is that I am not satisfied with the explanation being given and I find this situation unfortunate. I was sure that we were going to be presented with something that was enlightened, clear, brilliant, obvious and that everyone would say: Yes, of course! But that is not the case.

• 0950

[English]

The Chairman: So who is going to challenge the notion of not being brilliant enough?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Modesty obliges that we don't, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Sorry, do you want to intervene? Or does Mr. Amos? Because you do have some other observations.

[Translation]

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine: May I add a few words in response to Mr. de Savoye's question?

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine: You are right in saying that there is a difference between the two definitions, but the definition proposed by the government probably allows some flexibility. In particular, abiotic factors can be considered, something that is not in the panel's definition.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That is not the way I see it, but when we talk about maintaining ecological processes, they are not necessarily biotic. They may also be abiotic.

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine: There are no doubt abiotic processes, but in terms of ecosystem components, like geological factors, they are not included in their definition.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I don't agree about that.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye, let him finish, please.

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine: The definition proposed in the panel's report includes not only the definition, but also a long list of criteria added as considerations in the definition. If we take that definition and put it in the legislation without allowing any flexibility, it may have the effect of eliminating some of the criteria included in the panel's recommendations.

The Chairman: I will now move to Mr. Muise, followed by Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the opposition side we have the same amendment, but there seems to be a problem with the word “deemed”. Why not change the word “deemed” to meet the government's concerns? Then we could move on.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There seem to be two log-jams. One is the word “deemed”. The government's terminology is “determined to be characteristic” instead of “deemed characteristic”.

The other issue is the phrase “likely to persist”, which doesn't exist in our definition. We're not hung up on “likely to persist”. Why don't we include “likely to persist” in our definition as well? It makes a compromise, puts both definitions into one, creates the flexibility they want, and creates the ecological integrity definition that was proposed to us.

I don't think one is detrimental to the other. I think they can complement each other. I think both definitions could be edited into one.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, there are two things there.

One is the government's reading of the expression “likely to persist”. Obviously there's a different perception here between some members of the opposition and the government's view of those words. Leave that one aside for now.

There is a problem with the word “deemed”. I'll give you an example. This morning, Mark asked for the Minister to appear so that we could look at the estimates of the Department of Canadian Heritage. As of Thursday of this week, they will be deemed to have been studied and dealt with by this committee and they will not have been, but they will have been deemed by the House to have been. If you think that's a good way of doing things, fine. That is the power of the word “deemed”. If you want to stick it in there, that's what you might have: things will be deemed to be what they're not, and that is the problem we have with the word “deemed”.

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Hold it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's why we tried to get that definition away from there.

The Chairman: The way I understand it—before we start a little debate here—Mr. Laliberte, what you suggest is that “deemed” be replaced by “determined” and then that “likely to persist” be included in your definition.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if we're going to redefine things and amend definitions, I would suggest that we stay this section and do this off-table somehow. If people can get their heads together and start working on that, we may find an agreeable definition, but I would urge the members not to bog down the committee on that right now.

• 0955

The Chairman: I think that's fair. We'll stay this clause, the motions NDP-1, G-2, BQ-1, and BQ-2—

A voice: I would stand the clause, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Stand the whole clause...?

Yes, I think it would be easier to stand the whole clause, because the other amendments are minor ones, but it will create confusion. Let's stay the whole clause and we'll come back to everything in number two later on.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: We could deal with the other amendments without dealing with clause 2 as a whole. Since they are before us, we may as well decide on them. As you said earlier, if we stay all these clauses, we will have a huge pile at the end.

The Chairman: I believe that we will stand clause 2 in order to avoid confusion. It will be much easier to deal with everything concerning clause 2. The others are very simple.

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: There is no amendment to clause 3.

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(In clause 4—Parks dedicated to public)

The Chairman: There are amendments to clause 4. We have BQ-3 and G-6. We will look at BQ-3 first. Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The purpose of the proposed amendment is to give priority to the primary mission, which is to preserve the ecological integrity of parks. Of course, there will have to be a definition of what is meant by the ecological integrity of parks, but the aim is to make that the primary mission.

The second mission is to allow these parks to be used by the public. In subsection 4(1) the bill states that the primary mission is as follows:

4. (1) The national parks of Canada are here be dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment,

To my mind, and based on what I heard from certain witnesses, the parks are not there primarily for the public's enjoyment; they are there first and foremost to be preserved in terms of ecological integrity. Public enjoyment is secondary, and that is what I am trying to show in the amendment that I have proposed.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. de Savoye did not read subsection 4(1) in its entirety. If he had done so, he would have said:

the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

So the argument he is trying to make is unnecessary, since this provision, which incidentally has been in place since 1930, indicates that this is the basic reason for the parks' existence. The amendment is unnecessary. We get to what he wants later, in clause 8. I must say to him—and he can check himself—that the environmental groups are adamantly opposed to changes to this provision. It has been there since 1930 and it is a touchstone for the parks. If we start to play around with it, we will be re-opening things that we do not want to touch. We agree with what he wants to do and we do it in subsection 8(2), which clearly states that priority is given to the ecological integrity of the parks. We do that. It is unnecessary to do it here. It would just create confusion. Subsection 4(1) is just fine. It has existed for over 70 years, since 1930. The government is against this amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, do I have the floor?

The Chairman: yes, go ahead.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you.

I appreciate the comments that Mauril has just made. Let us say that I am eagerly awaiting subsection 8(2). However, the fact that this provision has been in force since 1930 may be an argument in my favour, since members will recall that the Auditor General was critical about the many environmental problems in the parks, including with respect to the use of parks by visitors.

• 1000

I get the impression—and you are allowed not to share this with me—that the way paragraph 4(1) is worded does indicate that the Parks Canada mission, under this legislative measure, is to give access to the parks while preserving their ecological integrity and not the reverse: to preserve their ecological integrity while giving access to the parks. It's a matter of priority. But as I know you're more numerous than I am...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could I ask you a question, Mr. de Savoye?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I'll just conclude. I won't develop hives if my proposal isn't accepted, but I wanted to make you aware of my impression which is that this clause, since 1930, has perhaps been the source of many problems as it has lead to the real mission not being prioritized.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's rather the contrary that's true. There are other clauses that were the source of problems. This one is considered as being exemplary. I have the following question for my colleague. How can he explain that neither the panel nor the environmental groups that came to give evidence before us ever suggested any amendment to this clause?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That's a good question. There are many groups who, without specifying which clause, suggested that the legislation...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The groups specified the clause.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: There are groups who appeared before the committee and did not suggest amendments to any specific clauses. Some did; others did not. But generally speaking, there was a concern for ecological integrity. The commission itself, when it tabled its report, said that there had to be a deep cultural change within Parks Canada. I for one say that the culture starts with the mission statement and the mission statement is in clause 4. As I was saying, I won't develop hives, but that's how I see things. It's not necessarily the best vision, but it's mine.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just wanted to lend my support to the BQ amendment. I believe that in 1930 the words “biological diversity” were not key words internationally. The threatened biological diversity of this planet was not so imminent and the awareness not so high as it is today. I think our honourable member's definition puts biological diversity as a priority, and the public use and access seems to be second-hand. I think it's crucial that they go hand in hand, but he's prioritizing the two, and I think, for today's age, the issue and the concern of biological diversity is defined in this definition.

The Chairman: Thank you. If there's no further discussion, I'll call for the vote on amendment BQ-3.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: I will now call amendment G-6.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I move that Bill C-27 in clause 4 be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 3 with the following: “of Canada as a comprehensive land claim”. “As”, “a”, and “claim” are the items to keep in mind here.

This is essentially an amendment responding to an issue raised by the Assembly of First Nations regarding the federal government's current comprehensive land claims policy.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Mr. Mark Muise: I have a question.

Monsieur Bélanger, maybe you can explain the significance of removing the land claims policy reference.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Go ahead, Mr. Amos.

The Chairman: Mr. Amos.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The concern raised by the Assembly of First Nations representatives was that by referring to a specific policy, the government's land claims policy, you were putting reference to a specific policy in legislation. They have some concerns with that policy, and in fact, on reflection, that policy should not be enshrined in legislation. A more general reference could be made to the subject matter without referring to the policy.

• 1005

So just remove the word “policy”. It has the same impact accepted for negotiation by the Government of Canada as a comprehensive land claim, but it doesn't say the basis of that acceptance, which may change from time to time.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5—National parks of Canada)

The Chairman: There are amendments in clause 5.

Mr. Mark, I understand you're not moving your amendment. You are withdrawing amendment CA-1.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Is it possible for a member of the committee to move this amendment?

The Chairman: You'd require unanimous consent to move an amendment at this stage. It is in order for you to move it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's in order to be moved?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I so move, Mr. Speaker.

The Chairman: No. But he withdraw the amendment. He can move the same amendment if he wants, in his own name. I understand that's quite in order.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll explain. Perhaps this is totally off-line here, but we have been subjected, in this current session of Parliament, to situations where parties did not move amendments at committee stage in order to be able to move them all at report stage and create significant confusion at report stage. I hope we can avoid that.

This committee has dealt straight on with bills, with all kinds of issues. To use this kind of tactic doesn't serve this committee well. I would like to move this so we can defeat it. It can't be moved at report stage that way.

I just wanted to make a point here.

The Chairman: Okay, let's move on. I understand from our legal experts here that we can't make presumptions on the intentions of people who move amendments. If we were to admit we were doing it just to defeat the chance of it going to report stage, the Speaker could say, “This hasn't been properly debated. We'll allow it at report stage.” So I suggest we just move on.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like it on the record that these could have been moved here.

The Chairman: Yes, that's fine.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I think I understand that this motion has been withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: That's right. It was withdrawn.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Agreed.

[English]

(Clause 5 agreed to)

The Chairman: We now move to amendment CA-2, which is the same.

The Clerk of the Committee: He's not moving any of those.

The Chairman: Are you withdrawing that too?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: No amendment was moved for clause 6.

(Clause 6 carries)

(Clause 7—Amendment to be tabled and referred)

[English]

The Chairman: There's an amendment to clause 7, G-7.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

• 1010

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we move that Bill C-27, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 4 with the following:

House of Parliament, together with a report on the proposed park or park reserve that includes information on consultations undertaken and any agreements reached with respect to its establishment, and an amendment so

I'll consult my notes because I didn't have time to go back over everything. I must admit it was done quickly. This amendment allows us to ensure that in the event of an order proposing the creation of a new park or park reserve, the proposal tabled in Parliament be accompanied by a report including information on the consultations undertaken as well as any agreement that might have been arrived at after those consultations with the province or a Native organization. The parliamentarians will thus be in a position to evaluate the support for the park or the park reserve. The purpose of the amendment we're moving is to answer the questions raised by the same group that made representations to the Assembly of First Nations. It will clarify the procedure we're suggesting to normalize the establishment of a park; in other words, besides the tabling of the proposal before both Houses of Parliament, there will be a requirement to table a summary of the negotiations for the parliamentarians to be in a better position to judge. We believe this is quite an acceptable proposal and we're tabling it officially as an amendment.

The Chairman: Is there any debate?

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now move on.

[Translation]

The Bloc Québécois moved amendment BQ-4.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In clause 7, it says that a proposed amendment must be referred to the committee and the committee seized of it may then report to the House within 20 sitting days that it disapproves of the amendment.

Technically, that means that if within the 20 days the committee has not tabled a report disapproving the amendment then the latter is deemed past. That seems a bit, not delicate, but dangerous. For example, for the budget, Madam Minister could have or should have allowed us to report by May 31, but if we don't report it will be the same as though we had reported in any case, and favourably, to top it off.

As the legislation has the intelligence to provide that the committee may report that it disapproves, I think the legislation should also make it mandatory for the committee to meet just so the whole thing isn't left to chance and scheduling. That's why the amendment I'm moving specifies that the committee of each House shall, within 10 sitting days after a proposed amendment is tabled, hold at least one meeting to discuss the amendment. This discussion could take place during our regular activities. In my opinion, that won't create any undue hardship, but it will assure us that if this committee believes there's a problem, it will have a full opportunity to look at whether it should report disapproval and the matter would thus not go unnoticed.

My amendment adds to the intent of the bill the certainty that the committee will have the opportunity to decide what it wants to do. I think that is democratically unavoidable.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I'd like us to examine amendments BQ-4, BQ-5 and BQ-6 that the Bloc Québécois is proposing as they all have to do with the argument Mr. de Savoye has just made.

• 1015

In passing, I'll tell you that the government will support amendments BQ-5 and BQ-6 concerning the timeframe the committee will have to review the proposed amendment the House refers to it and how long it has before the House deems it passed. In that matter, we agree with the views expressed by the Bloc Québécois because it takes many years to set up a park and there will be nothing wrong with adding a few dozens sitting days or so.

The problem with BQ-4 is that it proposes to force a committee to hold a meeting. We entertain some reservations because there could be circumstances where the committee might not have yet been set up, at the beginning of a session, for example, and would thus not be able to sit within the prescribed 10-day period. What would happen then? It's a legitimate question.

On the other hand, a committee can set its own agenda. The committees of the House do have some independence. The House can refer a proposal and tell the committee that if it hasn't heard anything back from it within x number of days then the proposal will be deemed passed. At that point, it's up to the committee to organize its own affairs to examine the proposed amendment and react if it wants to do so.

Even though we're ready to accept the two other amendments, imposing a meeting within 10 days seems improper to us. Parliament should not be able to require that the members of a committee meet within 10 sitting days. We believe such a requirement should not be written into the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, first, paragraph 7(1) as presently worded stipulates that an amendment tabled stands referred to the standing committee of each House. Thus, if the committee does not exist because it's the beginning of the session, it will be impossible to honour the provisions of paragraph 7(1) because, as the committee does not exist, it will be impossible to refer the matter to it. Any minister wishing to table a proposed amendment while honouring the letter and spirit of the law should wait for the committee to be struck, otherwise he could be challenged for having proceeded in spite of the provisions of paragraph 7(1).

Besides, Mr. Chairman, there's often a lot of talk, although perhaps not enough, about enriching the role of members, specially within committees. It seems to me we have a beautiful opportunity here to give the Heritage Committee, or whatever committee it may be referred to, the possibility to automatically and mandatorily reviewing a matter of such importance. If the matter was not important, it would not have been emphasized in the bill in the way it has been. So, it is important.

I'd add a supplementary dimension for my colleagues on the government side. As you know, when a party line is put to you, you must follow it even though you may personally have some hesitation or even hold contrary opinions. The way things are worded here, if ever a government, a prime minister or a minister decided they wanted things passed quickly, they might tell the members on the government side—and I'm not necessarily talking about you; this is a bill that is going to last; we're talking about protecting the integrity of systems and it's going to last a long time—that they don't want the matter put on the agenda within the timeframe set out. Even though the opposition members, meeting after meeting, might ask that it be put onto the agenda, it never will be. I don't think that is the spirit of the act and, in terms of enriching a member's role, it seems to me that not only do we have here an opportunity, but also an obligation.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

• 1020

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman. I think it's interesting that whenever we talk about enrichment, in the same breath you're talking about giving orders to a committee for its members to meet. I think that's a contradictory argument.

Secondly, I deplore my colleague's comment about the party line. If there's one standing committee of the House where party lines have not always been respected or even supported, it has to be this one. I would invite him to remember the numerous clauses of the bills we have amended. There were votes on both sides of the House as well as unanimity in passing certain other amendments. I would ask him to be careful when he mentions party lines in this committee.

Third, I'm opposed to forcing a committee to meet within 10 days while it's travelling or right in the middle of examining some other subject. We would be allowing the House to interfere in the most egregious fashion with a committee's work. We accept the amendments of my colleague that will give the committee more time. That's a perfectly legitimate request. We readily accept the amendments of my colleague giving more time to the committee. It's quite a legitimate request. We readily accept the two following amendments, but this first amendment contradicts the goal it is purportedly seeking which is the enrichment of the work of the committees and of the members of the committees.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, my colleague Mauril was certainly not listening to me very closely. I did take the precaution of saying that I wasn't speaking about you when I was speaking about party lines but that this actually concerned some future government in four, 10 or 100 years from now who might not be as well-intentioned as the colleagues I have sitting across the way.

Please don't worry, Mr. Bélanger. We are actually working in harmony right now. However, we must be aware of the fact that this bill will be there longer than we are, longer than this government will be, and that we cannot presume to know what the future holds. On the other hand, the law—not the House, but the law—says that, in the event that this committee wishes to table a dissenting report, it will have to do so within the next 20 sitting days. That is already in the standing orders. All I would add, my dear colleagues, is that we should discuss the issue before deciding on a dissenting report. In my view, it is incumbent upon us to decide whether we want to have a dissenting report.

The Chairman: I think there has been enough debate on this. Everyone's view is clear.

[English]

I'll call for the vote.

[Translation]

The vote is on amendment BQ-4.

(The amendment is defeated)

The Chairman: We now move to amendments BQ-5 and BQ-6.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, amendments BQ-5 and BQ-6 are along the same lines. They go together.

[English]

The Chairman: The legal experts tell me we can apply the same vote because BQ-6 flows from BQ-5; it's a consequence of BQ-5. So we'll deem BQ-6 adopted on the same vote, unless you desire differently.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now move on to NDP-2.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I was hoping the same spirit of cooperation would go through it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Forget it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: If you read what exists in subclause 7(3), it says:

(3) The motion shall be debated for not more than three hours and disposed of in accordance with the procedures of the House.

We're asking for the three hours of debate to be deleted. I think we could make some of the same arguments as the parliamentary secretary made, that this clause could be too restrictive and insensitive to circumstances. It could be too strong as a directive declaring to the committee in the other example, but this way I guess it could be too restrictive and too directive to the House.

• 1025

Schedules 1 and 2 are very crucial parts of this bill. I believe the parks and the park reserves make up the context of our whole parks network. For instance, if a very ambitious minister out there wanted to bring an omnibus amendment and create a whole handful of parks at the same time, three hours might not be enough time to debate it. In a normal instance of one park being brought in at a time—maybe that's what the government was looking at. If a very progressive-thinking minister at some point in the future brought in a handful at a time, that three hours could be very prohibitive.

I think it's best to delete it and go with the House schedule, the Speaker's will, the chairman's prerogative, and the minister's desires. All those words could be thrown in there to be flexible on this issue.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, my colleague opposite makes an interesting case. I'll try to present a point of view that I hope he can support.

What the government is trying to do here is create a rather streamlined and obviously easier way of creating new parks or adding to parks. It's important. I have to insist on creation of new parks and addition to parks.

If it were to eliminate portions of parks or eliminate a park entirely, this process could not be used for that. It has to be viewed as a positive process, in terms of adding to or creating new parks. This process cannot be used for a negative—that is, taking away or eliminating. That has to be done by law; through a bill proposing it be disposed of in the legislative process.

The government hopes to create a process where we don't have to wait years, when we've negotiated with the provinces, when we have an agreement with native groups or environmental groups—everybody concerned—for legislative time, which is a very difficult thing to get at times, as members will know. Therefore, we split the process of creating versus changing negatively, by making a park smaller or eliminating it.

The culmination of the process is indeed the final debate in the House. It could perhaps have been four hours or five hours or two hours—I won't debate that with my colleague. There is an arbitrary nature to this. Three hours is deemed to be sufficient time for everyone to speak, for every party to have a chance to speak at least, and so forth.

So without debating the arbitrariness of the three hours versus four hours, there's the notion of having a limited time of debate to put an end to the process that has involved years of work in the field and debate in the committee, because a plan has been proposed, negotiations have been tabled, and so forth. The intent is that it has to end, and you can't leave it at the discretion of a whim or something else deemed at the time to be more pressing—perhaps not more important, but more pressing. So the intent of the legislator here, the government, is to say that after three hours it'll be disposed of.

I'm trying to convince my colleague to forget the arbitrariness of the three hours versus four hours or six hours, that the notion we can put an end to the process and create or add to parks is something he could support. If we don't have that in there, we may jeopardize the entire streamlining process we've tried to build into this act.

• 1030

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, are you stunned by the...?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, there are so many questions. When you deal with procedures of the House, there's the first, second, third report. What that whole aspect comes—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's just that it will carry a vote. We're not talking about first, second, and third here. We're talking about three hours of debate at the end. This is the end, the pinnacle of the process, that will see us adding to a park or creating new parks formally. They'll be then protected by law. That's what we're trying to do.

We're not going to shortchange ourselves, Mr. Laliberte, by streamlining the process. If we remove this, then everything else we've done is for naught, because it could get bogged down in the House at that point. But if we can go to the House and say to the House leader, okay, three hours, and then we've added to the protection of our natural environment, surely to God you can support that.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, I'd like to support the House leaders as well. I think they have the integrity to create the House time for subsequent...I guess the substance of what the amendment has. I can't imagine what the substance is going to be. If it's a big amendment, it might need three and a half hours. This one limits it to three.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I recognize the arbitrariness of three hours versus three and a half. Are you saying that for one half-hour you'd want to jeopardize the streamlining process we've built to add to our parks?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Our interpretation is that this is a legislated time allocation. That precludes the House leaders from negotiating time in the House. I'd rather leave it to the whim of the House leaders, who play a role.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'd rather not.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll stand by the amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Well, I must tell you this one slipped by us. We had not seen it. If we had seen it, we would have submitted an amendment along the same lines as my colleague's. This is an attempt to gag people through a bill.

If it is so clear, and if the committee agrees not to submit a dissenting report and we all come to an agreement, this will go through like a hot knife through butter. There will be no problem. But if there are problems, and we believe that some citizens or groups who wish to be heard were not, then three hours will not be enough. Generally, when you restrict the right of groups or citizens to speak, they find another way to get their point across. Generally, we don't like that.

In my view, this is superfluous and should not have been included in a bill. If we include it in this bill today, will it be the beginning of a trend? In the future, will all bills provide for their own amendment procedure? I think this is a bit risky. This sort of provision should not be in the bill.

I therefore support the motion before us.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, I thought you were—

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, I was. I hadn't seen you recognize me, so I was waiting.

The Chairman: Oh, I see.

Mr. Mark Muise: I respect your authority.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Contrary to some of us.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Please, Mr. Muise, carry on.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the intent here in what Mr. Bélanger was saying about trying to streamline the process, but if you believe in what is being done and you want to do it in the best way possible, I think limiting debate to three hours, especially on an amendment that could require more, is not right. I too am concerned about the precedence it creates and what this could mean for us in the future.

I also will be supporting my colleague's amendment.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would invite our colleagues across the way not to see this as a cynical move. We are talking about a process. Through this bill, we are attempting to establish a process that will make it possible for us to expand our parks, not reduce them. That is the point of these provisions, and that is what's important.

• 1035

To reduce the size of a park or to eliminate it, we would have to introduce a bill and the entire legislative process would then be set in motion. That is the difference.

And let's remember that, once we reach that final stage in the approval process, it is usually the culmination of lengthy negotiations with provincial authorities. Either the Crown is the sole owner, and has no other partnerships, or the park is under federal-provincial jurisdiction, and discussions with all neighbouring communities, including Aboriginal communities, would then be required. But this is the end of a process, a confirmation of what has been agreed in the course of discussion and negotiation, upon agreement by all parties concerned. This is something positive. There is nothing negative here. If there was a negative aspect, that would be something else. But this is the normal process through which one changes a park.

All we are saying is that, after all those years of work, some kind of limit does have to be established. I know that three hours may be somewhat arbitrary. It could be four hours, if you like. I have no objection. But a time limit has to be established to force Parliament to bring the process to an end.

Mr. Mark Muise: I do not disagree with...

[English]

The Chairman: Just hold it a minute. Mr. Mark has asked to speak. I'll refer to you after.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: On the same point, Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be easier just to take out some words? Subclause 7(3) says the motion “shall be debated for not more than three hours”. I mean, that's really putting in place in this legislation time allocation on debate on this motion. Let the House do it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Sorry, but we're not talking about legislation.

The Chairman: Wait a minute, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mark, please finish your remarks.

Mr. Inky Mark: If you would eliminate the words “not more than”, it would just mean it should be debated and disposed of. Let the House leader decide the time that they're going to debate.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Right; it could be one hour.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we have to be clear.

[English]

This deals with a motion from a committee to add to or create parks, okay? It's a motion, not legislation. That's clear.

If we were to put in this a limit on a motion, I too would oppose it. It would not be appropriate, in my mind, for us to legislate a bâillon on a legislative process.

This is a motion we're talking about. If we're going to say that any one person or any one party could then get into a situation to stop the creation or addition to parks because of whatever reason, then fine. This way we're saying that after a set time this will be put to a vote—the motion, not legislation. That's very important.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, then Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, in his previous comments Monsieur Bélanger made some very good points. I don't disagree with the points he made. What I disagree with is the principle or the precedent we are creating, regardless of whether it's for a motion or a piece of legislation. I don't like what this is creating and I don't like legislation dictating how the House is going to operate.

We've seen too many times, when debate has gone on and on and on, the House leader of the government side coming and putting a motion forward for time allocation. Now, what's going to prevent them from doing that in the future? I don't like that either, but I don't like seeing that in the legislation.

The Chairman: Monsieur de Savoye and Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like Mr. Bélanger to listen to me carefully, because I have the impression we might be dealing with a problem that is much larger than we think. Given the way subsection 7(3) is drafted, so long as this bill remains in force as drafted, amendments cannot be debated for more than three hours.

• 1040

But isn't the House sovereign? Yes, it is, but it cannot violate the Constitution, or violate any statute that it has adopted and given Royal Assent to. Here, we would pass a bill making it impossible to debate a motion of this sort for more than three hours. So, if in ten years there is an important motion that warrants four, five or six hours' debate, that debate could not take place. The House, the people's elected representatives, could not debate that motion as they should because today we have taken away every opportunity for them to do so.

In my view, we have no right to restrict the time future generations of members of Parliament will have to debate a given motion. Let them decide for themselves how much time they want to spend in debating an issue. We have no right to decide for future generations that three hours are enough. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As someone who believes in parliamentary reform almost as passionately as you do, Mr. Chairman, I find this clause distasteful. I think any clause that puts any kind of discipline on the House of Commons goes against the whole essence of parliamentary reform.

I think our colleagues here have given us some fresh, renewed insight. I just could never support, at the committee stage, time allocation on any activity that would happen in the whole House of Commons. I may feel that on behalf of my constituents I want a full opportunity to debate on a particular issue at whatever stage it is. Why should my colleagues next to me or from the ridings on either side or all around me not have the same right to put their views on the floor of the House of Commons? This restricts that.

I think we should defeat this.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I listened to Mr. de Savoye's remarks. Perhaps I can get an explanation here. If I can't, I will look this up.

As far as I know, in the circumstances Mr. de Savoye described—if I'm wrong, I'm quite ready to change my mind—the House could unanimously decide to extend the debate. If that is not the case, I would feel obliged to agree with Mr. de Savoye. Is that agreed?

So here is my question for our legal experts: let us say this bill becomes law. In the circumstances Mr. de Savoye described, if all members in the House unanimously decided to extend debate beyond three hours, could they do it? If they cannot extend the debate, then I am obliged to agree with Mr. de Savoye. If they can extend the debate, then I maintain my position.

The Chairman: I will let Mr. Toupin answer that question.

Mr. Marc Toupin (Legal Counsel): Mr. Chairman, if the committee decided to pass subsection 7(3) of the bill as it stands, it would become law. Once this provision was law, the only way to extend the debate on recommendations in a committee report beyond three hours, upon request by a member of the House and with unanimous consent, would be through legislative amendment. If the Chamber and the Senate pass this provision and it receives Royal Assent, it becomes law.

• 1045

Thus, even with unanimous consent, the House might have difficulty in extending debate beyond three hours.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Very well. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I accept the arguments made by the opposition and will vote in favour of my colleagues' motion.

The Chairman: This has been a long and very interesting debate.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte, you should quit while you're ahead, you know.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I so move.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Laliberte: [Inaudible—Editor]...overlook that a motion is required. I so move to—

The Chairman: It's been moved.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 8—Management by Minister)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Amendment G-8.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I will read this amendment into the record. However, I will ask the department officials to explain it, because I was concentrating on the previous one.

We move that Bill C-27, in clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 39 on page 4 with the following:

land in parks and, for that purpose, the Minister may use and occupy those lands.

And on the issue of ecological integrity, we move that:

(2) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.

In English, the amendment reads as follows:

[English]

Essentially, we have an amendment at lines 35 to 39 on page 4. Where we have “lands in parks” we add “and for that purpose, the Minister may use and occupy those lands”.

Then, subclause 8(2), which has been the source of a lot of discussion, would read:

(2) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.

This is essentially to Mr. Lee, perhaps, or Mr. Amos.

[Translation]

This amendment responds to the concerns we heard from many witnesses, and have taken into consideration.

[English]

The Chairman: Do the officials of the ministry want to add to Mr. Bélanger's comments?

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, very briefly, I'll introduce the subject.

In terms of the first clause, this is occurring because of amendments that were occurring through the act. What we found is that we put ourselves in the position where the minister would have to give herself a licence to use park land. That was never the intention. Parks Canada builds a building; we don't licence ourselves. So we're just correcting that and making it clear that the clause isn't intended to apply to the licensing of others to occupy parts of parks. The minister has never given herself a licence for that purpose.

The second item deals with the second key element of this legislation relating to ecological integrity. If we get it defined properly, we want to put it in a position—respond to the panel and the recommendations of the various organizations or constituents—that the minister and Parks Canada therefore, when making decisions, will consider ecological issues and natural processes to be the first priority in the management of parks. That's fundamentally what we're doing here. Again, there have been various other wordings proposed. We've been trying to work with groups to try to come up with acceptable wordings. Bruce will report on that.

• 1050

Mr. Bruce Amos: I'll just highlight, Mr. Chairman, the changes this amendment brings to subclause 8(2), which is in the bill before the committee.

It essentially does three things. First of all, it adds the words “or restoration” after “maintenance”, and this is in response to a number of interventions. Different parties indicated the bill should not just discuss maintenance of ecological integrity, but its restoration.

The second inclusion was to add, after the words “through the protection of natural resources”, the words “and natural processes”. That was a change recommended by a number of parties to the committee.

Third, you will note that the bill before you indicates at the end of the clause, “in the consideration of park zoning and visitor use”. The committee heard a number of representations that this description is too narrow, that referring strictly to park zoning and visitor use is not broad enough, and that in fact ecological integrity should be the minister's first priority when considering all aspects of the management of parks.

Those are words that have been added, Mr. Chair—“when considering all aspects of the management of parks”. It's proposed to broaden it beyond what was before you in the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, you've asked for the floor.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

I had a concern, and the more I read this—maybe my concern isn't quite as strong as it was....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You should read it again.

Mr. Mark Muise: But reading alone will not do it. I need clarification.

Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to be disrupting, but they tend to do that.

In regard to maintenance and restoration, I have a concern with the restoration. If we have an old logging road that we want to let come back to its natural state, I don't have a problem. But I'm thinking of something maybe more drastic, like fish that are not deemed to be native to a lake having been destroyed and then being restocked.

Are we saying that restoration will be done by natural processes, or if a lake has fish that are deemed not to be native, might we blow them up or put some chemicals in the water to destroy them to restock with natural fish? I'm using that as an example, just for clarification.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Well, without discussing the methodologies and the examples you gave, yes, we are talking not only about natural restoration, but also intervention to restore natural processes or components that are no longer there. This could refer to the restoration of a site. For example, if there's been an old gravel pit in the park, its restoration to a natural environment should be a priority. At the same time, it could refer to a natural process. That could, for example, be removing a dam to allow a stream to flow naturally.

The Chairman: Do you want to add something, Mr. Muise?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes. On the surface, I have no problem with restoration to make the parks what they are. But with your explanation, I still have the same concerns I had initially, before I read it over and over again. I'm concerned that this could be pushed to a point where it might possibly lead...let's use another example, the cancellation of leases, or other.... I'm concerned with this.

Restoration, if it happens naturally, I can see. But to what degree? Where do you stop this process? Do you restore Banff to its natural state? Do you tear down the Banff Springs Hotel and make the land reforested? That's what it says if you're going to push it to the nth degree. When you have that much latitude in legislation, that's its potential. I'm concerned about that.

• 1055

Mr. Tom Lee: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the member's concerns, and I would refer to the process that is used, that is actually strengthened in this bill, and we'll see it in other clauses. The determination of the direction for ecological integrity in parks is determined through the management plan. That's where you capture it, where there's a decision made and a direction taken. There's a requirement under that plan. There's a requirement in the act that the plan be part of a consultative process. When that plan is signed off, then you implement it.

I like the example you used, because the issue has received some attention in Banff, the restoration of some bull trout habitat of the lake. The direction to take that came out of the Bow Valley study recommendations and the management plan for the park. Both the Bow Valley study and the management plan said it would be desirable to try to retain bull trout in the park. That's a native species and has been impacted by species that were imported a long time ago, thirty years ago. So it was agreed upon in the consultations on the management plan that we would try to restore some lakes, not all of them, and the fish would remain...some of the introduced species would be retained. The question of how to do that and whether we can do that is also part of a public process. That particular effort is supported by the fish and game clubs as a policy direction.

The difficulty we have is exactly the one you mentioned, the method. Can you do that? I mean, we do not intend to go around blowing up fish. If that's what we need to restore the lake, we'll have to take a look at whether we can restore the lake. What I've described to you is the process, and you will see, as we move through the act, that that process is outlined in legislation.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, as you know, in a few pages we will come to amendment BQ-6.1, which simply changes the French version. There was no mention that the first priority of the minister should be to maintain and restore ecological integrity. The amendment we are looking at now, both in French and English, eliminates my concern about the minister's first priority.

I am also comfortable with the other aspects of this government amendment. Further on, there are provisions that could be used to limit the minister's actions, particularly in some national parks like Banff and Jasper.

I am therefore in favour of the amendment as it stands.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I'm trying to translate between the two amendments. We would be in favour of amendment G-8 as well, since it's in consideration of ours, which is up next. We would pull ours if amendment G-8 were passed.

The Chairman: So we'll carry on to the vote on amendment G-8.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, do you agree that amendment NDP-3 falls?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's right, yes.

The Chairman: And amendment BQ-6.1 falls?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: So I will now call clause 8 as amended.

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

• 1100

The Chairman: Considering we started at 9 o'clock and we will carry on until 1 o'clock—there's no lunch today—I suggest that we take a 10-minute break and come back at 11:10 a.m. Some people want to stretch and some want to smoke a cigarette, so we'll break for 10 minutes and be back at 11:10 a.m.

• 1100

• 1115

The Chairman: We'll now resume the meeting.

(On clause 9—Park communities)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Let us resume clause-by-clause. We are considering amendment G-9,

[English]

amendment G-9 on page 28 of your binder.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, G-9 is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to clarify terminology. There was an amendment to clause 2 of the bill that we did not pass because we postponed passage of clause 2 itself. However, I would like to refer to it now. I am talking about amendment G-1, which includes a definition of community plan in section 2. It is defined as a land use plan for a park community. We are trying to define land use because that is where limitations on a park's operation can be imposed. A community plan might include economic development, schools, and health—however, for the purposes of Parks Canada, we wanted to restrict the concept of a community plan to a land use plan for a park community. There is nothing unusual about that, and it is what people want.

Thus, amendment G-9 deals with powers in relation to land use planning and development.

In English, we have deleted the words “community plan” and replaced them with “land use plan”. This provides a better definition of what we understand by community plan. It is land use and development.

[English]

It is land use planning, not everything else that could be...under provincial authority, for instance, involved in the community plan. It's a technical amendment to clarify the sense of what we wish to mean here.

[Translation]

I should point out that we will soon come back to amendment G-1, which is on clause 2 of the bill, so that we can adopt the definition. The two amendments go together.

The Chairman: Are there any comments on what Mr. Bélanger has said?

[English]

Is there any discussion? If not, we'll proceed to the vote on G-9.

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: The next amendment is BQ-7, which refers to section 9 of the bill. Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, you will note that this amendment refers to clause 10.1 of the bill, with which we will be dealing in a few moments. Thus, I would prefer not to discuss this amendment now, because it will not become relevant before we deal with the amendment to clause 10.1, also moved by the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to stand this amendment for now, and come back to it after we deal with our amendment to clause 10.1, which will be moved a little later.

The Chairman: Agreed.

[English]

We'll stand clause 9 and come back to BQ-7 and the vote on the amended clause 9.

(Clause 9 allowed to stand)

(On clause 10—Agreements—general)

The Chairman: We'll now move to amendment G-10.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment brought forward to deal with the concerns of some of the witnesses who were before us, in that they didn't see themselves in the definition in subclause 10(1). I refer specifically, if you will, to the presentation we had from the Jasper town council representatives. They were concerned about that.

We believe that by replacing line 9 on page 5 with “bodies established under land claim agreements and other persons and organizations” , it becomes inclusive enough that just about everyone can then be involved in the management, either by agreement or by delegation of authority wherever that can be applied in the park community. Therefore, these words would basically provide enough leeway for just about any group who wished—and whose legitimacy was acknowledged—to be involved.

• 1120

The Chairman: And the second part?

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's the same thing. Aboriginal groups and governments asked to be included among those who could be recognized, and with whom the parks could deal. It's as simple as that.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question of clarification for Monsieur Bélanger.

When you say “and other persons and organizations”, one of the concerns I have, and why we put PC-2 forward as an amendment—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It would include yours, Mark.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's my concern.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It would.

Mr. Mark Muise: Oh, I see. That's fine, thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You're fine with that...? Thanks.

The Chairman: Is there any other discussion on G-10?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, maybe just for a clarification, because ours is so similar to your amendment. The only thing missing from ours is “local government body”. I guess we were trying to follow through with what's in the bill now under paragraph 10(2)(b), which is “local government body”. In your amendment you're taking out the term “body”. Is there a reason for that?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, there is. We even heard it from the people who represented the Jasper town council. They don't want to be another Banff.

There's a will here of the government and of the minister, which is reflected throughout the bill, that we will not have another situation like we've had. We would not want to see any words in the bill that might open the door to that. Therefore, “local government body” is something that we will not be encouraging. Quite clearly, we will not have any more of those.

We will deal with local communities. They will be consulted, involved, and so forth, but it's “local government body” that I suspect—and I hope I'm not mistaken here—we don't necessarily want to see in there.

Mr. Lee, you may want to clarify.

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes. To be helpful here, I think, we do make arrangements with “local government bodies”, but one of the issues that arose, and it arose in a member's riding, was the use of local government.

And I might make an apology of record before the committee. This raised grave concern with the Waskesiu community. I inadvertently excluded them by indicating that they did not have a local government by using it in a strictly legal sense: that they do not have a form of municipal administration sanctioned by provincial legislation. They felt excluded by this, and that was not my intention, so the general reference to organizations is also intended to get over that problem. So the Waskesiu are included as an organization by definition. We're not trying to be exclusive here. We're trying to be inclusive.

Mr. Bruce Amos: If I may, as a point of clarification, I think Mr. Laliberte is referring to the proposed NDP motion on paragraph 10(2)(b). I don't believe the deletion of the word “body” there has any significance.

The government motion would refer to “local or aboriginal government”. There's no significance to the deletion of the word “body”. It was just a drafting thing. The proposal is “local or aboriginal government”. It used to read “local government body”. Our sense is that it has exactly the same meaning. In this phrase, what we're talking about specifically is agreements for supply of water. That's the sense of this clause. There's no intention at all to change the meaning by deleting the word “body” there.

The Chairman: Mrs. Jennings.

• 1125

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I would add that, if you look at the French translation, both in the NDP amendment and government amendment G-10, you see exactly the same thing, even though the English versions are different. This shows that the word "body" is redundant, because

[English]

if you look at the French translation of your English amendment that says “with a local government body” it says “une administration locale”. Now look at amendment G-10. The French translation is “une administration locale”, whereas in the English version of amendment G-10 it simply says “local government”. Yours says “local government body”. The French translation of both is identical. So I think the gentleman's suggestion that the word “body” is redundant is confirmed by the French translation of both amendments.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Now it's getting too complicated. We just wanted to clarify the situation because the wording was similar and it would be....

The Chairman: Can we proceed on amendment G-10?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, amendment G-10 is fine with us.

(Amendment agreed to)

A voice: So amendments PC-2 and NDP-4 follow.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, I would withdraw mine.

The Chairman: You are withdrawing PC-2?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, because this effectively does that.

The Chairman: Amendment PC-2 falls and amendment NDP-4 falls.

We are now considering amendment CA-3.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's not moved.

The Chairman: Amendment CA-3 is withdrawn.

We'll move on to the vote on clause 10 as amendment BQ-8 is a new clause.

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: So we will now go on to amendment BQ-8, which is a new clause, numbered for the purposes of our work as clause 10.1.

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: At the outset, I should indicate that my amendment does not include paragraph (b). On your sheet, you have paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Paragraph (b) is not part of my amendment. You delete it.

An Hon. Member: We have to delete it?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: We have to delete it.

[English]

Paragraph 10.1(1)(b) is not part of my submission to you.

A voice: So it's an amendment to the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: No, not really.

[English]

The Chairman: No, we'll agree that the amendment to be presented by Mr. de Savoye would be paragraph 10.1(1)(a), paragraph 10.1(1)(c), paragraph 10.1(1)(d), and the rest.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The purpose of clause 10.1, which is before you now, is to give the minister the power to make a decision in respect of a number of issues I consider important. These issues were raised by witnesses, and do not seem to be reflected in the bill as it stands. Among other things, we know that Aboriginals have acquired rights—everyone knows that—but some non-Aboriginal groups who used and use parks also have acquired rights. Moreover, the minister should have the means to protect and make decisions regarding traditional activities. That is the purpose of paragraph (a).

• 1130

Paragraph (c) deals with situations where a national park might have an impact not only on lands within the park but also lands adjacent to the park, but outside park boundaries.

In my opinion, it would be unfortunate if the minister were unable to make decisions in the event of a conflict between park authorities and people adjacent to the park. The minister should be in a position to make decisions in such cases.

Similarly, the minister should be able to make decisions to establish a local government representing the populations concerned. Some witnesses deplored the fact that the minister could interact with a local government, but that there was not necessarily a local government there. I remember one witness asking whether the provinces would be responsible for establishing such local governments. However, in a bill, we cannot rely on a third party to implement a local government if one is needed. In my view, it should be the minister who has authority to make such decisions. That covers subclause (1) of proposed clause 10.1.

Subclause 10.1(2) states that, in making a decision in respect of any matter referred to in paragraphs 1(a), 1(c) or 1(d), the minister must act with appropriate federal and provincial ministers and agencies, local and Aboriginal governments, and non-government organizations. He must ensure that all parties are given the opportunity to express their views on the issues involved. And, of course, the minister's decision must reflect the results of consultation between the parties.

So as you can see, the purpose of section 10.1 is to ensure the minister has the ability to make decisions regarding traditional activities, conflicts with authorities outside a national park, and local governments. We ask that his decisions be made in consultation with all parties concerned, to ensure that it reflects the concerns of those parties. That's it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye, I'm extremely happy to see that, particularly in paragraph (c), you give a federal minister powers on lands adjacent to national parks that might be under provincial jurisdiction. That is quite incredible. I wonder if that is...

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, you put your finger on one of the major problems of the amendment put forward by our colleague. I would say that, generally speaking, the proposed amendment is not bad, but it is already included, for the most part, in other clauses of the bill, such as clause 8, which we just studied and which deals with the powers of the minister.

We would be repeating ourselves to state again that the minister can make decisions on any of these matters. For example, the protection and preservation of the traditional activities mentioned in paragraph 10.1(1)(a) of the amendment appear in detail in clause 17 of the bill. Moreover, if the committee agrees, we will accept an amendment put forward by the Bloc Québécois to clause 17 of the bill. The government is in favour of the amendment on the Mingan Islands Park, which will solve the problem described to us by the delegation from the region.

Thus, clause 17 of the bill covers the issue of traditional activities in detail. I think we can rely on this clause, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat what it says here.

With respect to paragraph (c), Mr. Chairman, you identified the problem very well. This goes beyond the minister's power under the Constitution.

• 1135

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: We are talking about paragraph (d), are we not?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We are talking about (c):

(c) all matters relating to the lands in or adjacent to a park...

That's a big problem! I think we would be creating an untenable situation. We should therefore not accept this.

Paragraph (d) states:

(d) the establishment of a local government that represents the population...

That is not necessary. The Minister's decision-making power is already set out in clause 10, which we have just examined. These provisions can be found elsewhere in the bill.

As for your proposed paragraph 10.1(2)(a), I would say that clause 12 covers the minister's obligation to consult. We will get there soon.

Your proposal for 10.1(2)(b) is as follows:

(b) the decision made by the minister takes into consideration the results of the consultation between the parties.

The bill already requires that the minister take all information into account.

I do not understand what you are trying to do. If your objective is to put various provisions of the bill into the same clause, you have succeeded. However, I don't think that is necessary.

We think paragraph 10.1(1)(c) exceeds the minister's constitutional authority.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like to provide some information for my friend Mauril with respect to 10.1(1)(c). The objective of this provision is not to give the minister authority over lands located outside the park. In (c), we say that if there were a conflict between an administration, organization or individual located on lands outside the park and park authorities, the minister should make a decision about the issue to try to avoid a conflict between the park authorities and an authority, individual or organization outside the park.

The idea is to avoid having Parks Canada seen as a bad neighbour. The minister, who is the individual in charge of Parks Canada, must be able to make decisions but will ensure that Parks Canada is not seen as a bad neighbour. This does not give the minister any authority whatsoever over the neighbours. Let us be quite clear on this.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If we were to adopt this provision, Mr. Chairman, we would probably find ourselves in the Supreme Court at some point to get it clarified. Paragraph 10(1)(c) of the bill reads as follows:

“10.1(1) The Minister may make a decision...”

“(c) all matters relating to the lands in or adjacent to a park...”

I understand from that that the Minister may make a decision. If, as my colleague said, this would subordinate the Minister's powers to those with authority over adjacent lands, it is even worse. We cannot accept this proposed amendment in either case.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? If not, I am going to call the question on amendment BQ-8 minus paragraph (b).

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like to go back to amendment BQ-7, Mr. Chairman. Since proposed clause 10.1 has not been carried, BQ-7 no longer applies. I therefore withdraw it.

The Chairman: Amendment BQ-7 is withdrawn and we can proceed with the vote on clause 9 as amended.

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 11—Management plans)

The Chairman: We are now on clause 11. On page 38 we have

[English]

amendment G-11. I should mention that there are two or three amendments. I think we have three that refer to the same subject, so we'll start with Mr. Bélanger's.

• 1140

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We're looking at clause 11 on page 5, where it says:

11.(1) The Minister shall, within five years after a park is established, prepare a management plan for the park

We're adding at lines 32 to 35 the following:

containing a long-term ecological vision for the park, a set of ecological integrity objectives and indicators and provisions

before:

for resource protection, zoning and visitor use,

and then adding:

public awareness and performance evaluation,

before:

which shall be tabled in each House of Parliament.

This amendment is a response to concerns raised before us by the representatives of the ecological integrity panel and other environmental organizations. They recommend that the bill require that management plans as well address ecological integrity, and that's what we propose to do.

The Chairman: Any discussion, questions?

Mr. de Savoye.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I am getting a little ahead here. I notice that the New Democratic Party has also put forward an amendment to lines 32 to 34. The amendment is somewhat similar to the government's amendment, but refers to protecting and restoring the ecological integrity of the park. The word "restore" does not appear in the government's amendment. Before we deal with amendment G-11, which to all intents and purposes would cancel the NDP amendment, I would like to be sure that we have a proper understanding of the broad issue, and that we should not be adding something here to simplify things later on.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm glad my colleague picked that out. That's exactly the point I would like to make. There's a term in the government's amendment: “for resource protection”. Would you consider “protection and restoration”? That's the only other one that's missing out of our intention in the amendment.

The Chairman: Can you tell me where yours says “protection?” I thought you said “resource protection”.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Our amendment says:

the park which is designed to protect and restore the ecological integrity

It refers to “protect and restore”. In the government's amendment all's going well and there are “indicators and provisions for resource protection”. We would recommend perhaps “restoration” be added on theirs.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So amendment G-11 would read:

ment plan for the park containing a long-term ecological vision for the park, a set of ecological integrity objectives and indicators and provisions for resource protection and restoration,

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We can live with that.

Mr. Chairman, we can consider that a friendly amendment.

The Chairman: Okay. Can we take it that the government amendment, which will solve a lot of problems of procedure, will read, after “resource protection”:

and restoration, zoning,

—and so on? Is there consensus on this?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Amendment NDP-5 will fall. We will go on to amendment NDP-6, which seems redundant to me, so it falls away.

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 12—Public consultation)

The Chairman: We now go on to amendment G-12.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: As a reference, we are talking about clause 12, lines 1 to 7 on page 6.

• 1145

A number of proposals and suggestions have been made regarding this clause, the first of which by our colleague from the Bloc. Clause 12(1) would read as follows:

12.(1) The minister shall, where applicable,

We are adding the words “where applicable” in English, as suggested.

“provide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local levels, including participation by Aboriginal organizations, bodies established under land claim agreements and representatives of park communities,”

These are important words

“in the development of parks policy and regulations, the establishment of parks,”

and we added the words

“and regulations [...] the formulation of management plans,”

and we added the words

“land use planning and development in relation to park communities.”

As I was saying, we are moving these amendments in response to a number of questions raised both by Aboriginal groups and by our colleagues from the Alliance to ensure that consultation is mandatory. We think we have responded quite well to the comments we heard. We also heard from the Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment, for example. This, then, is our response to the comments we heard during the hearings, without losing sight of our own objectives.

[English]

The Chairman: Can I ask the drafters something? In the English text, under land claims agreements, it says “and representatives of park communities”. In the French text it's

[Translation]

“ou des représentants des collectivités”.

[English]

Which one do we retain?

Mr. Bruce Amos: It should be “and”.

The Chairman: It should be “and”.

[Translation]

So in French the word should be “et”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The text will read: “et des représentants des collectivités”.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any discussion? Are you ready for the vote on amendment G-12?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now move on to amendment NDP-7.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, NDP-7 should be considered on this one.

The Chairman: Can you speak to it then?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The amendment is replacing line 12 on page 6 so that subclause 12(2) would read:

At least every two years, the Minister shall cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament a report on the state of the parks and on progress made towards the establishment of new parks, and a report so tabled stands referred to the standing committee of each House that normally considers matters relating to parks or to any other committee that that House may designate and the findings of each committee shall be reported by them to their respective House.

This opens up a role for this committee. I think these reports should be given the credibility they deserve, not only in existing parks but in new parks that the report may refer to.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I understand fully why this is before us. I'll put a question to Mr. Laliberte. In the years that we've been dealing with parks, and that he has, is there anything that has ever stopped this committee or him as a member of the committee from asking the committee to consider any of the state of the park reports that have been tabled in the House?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: A lot of reference has been made to this legislation. It's a long-standing legislation. It may not reflect the role or the responsibility that the existing government may have or the procedures you've followed in the present tense. In the future, a minister may want to just proceed to House procedures on a report. I think this committee, being the committee in the House of Commons charged with looking at details of the parks issues and reports dealing with parks issues, should be given an opportunity, under this legislation, to be directed and to be charged with this responsibility.

• 1150

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, is it not the prerogative of the House to refer to committee? Aren't we just putting in the legislation very much the sort of directive that...? The House can direct anything it wants to the committee.

I will just ask Mr. Toupin.

Mr. Laliberte, the committee lawyers tell me that such a report would automatically be referred by the House to a committee. In their view, this is redundant. It's just presuming on something the House would do anyway.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. We can withdraw it.

The Chairman: Amendment NDP-7 is withdrawn.

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14—Wilderness areas)

The Chairman: There are two amendments from the NDP, NDP-8 and NDP-9.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We can pull ours on this one because amendment G-13 would cover it.

The Chairman: So you are pulling NDP-8 and NDP-9?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. The agenda just threw me off a little bit there. We had NDP-8 and NDP-9 under clause 12.

The Chairman: There was an error, yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. So if we come before government, then we'll pull ours and entrust that their clause covers ours.

The Chairman: We'll go on to amendment G-13.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is another of the recommendations that was put to us by the Panel on Ecological Integrity. They recommended that we establish some timelines for the declaration of wilderness areas.

The amendment proposed to clause 14 would be to add the following after line 42:

(4) Where a new or amended management plan sets out an area of a park for declaration as a wilderness area, the Minister shall recommend such declaration to the Governor in Council within one year after the plan or amendment is tabled under section 11.

We basically meet what was suggested here. It's fairly straightforward.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 15—Disposition of public lands)

The Chairman: We have amendment G-14.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Bear with me, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Feel free to intervene, Mrs. Katz, if you want to.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I'm going to ask them to.

You may remember that we had a number of witnesses who expressed grave concerns about the termination of leases. You may remember that we raised one possibility. The ability to terminate leases, as I said at the time, fell into an overall legal framework that we all live under. It's not a whim; there has to be cause or compensation elements and so forth. We've attempted in this section to reflect that, in order to assuage the fears or concerns we'd heard.

I will ask the officials to present the elements of this section and we'll deal with it after that.

The Chairman: Mrs. Katz or Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: I'll just introduce the subject and tell you how we got into the problem.

• 1155

Under the previous act there were sections that related to the Expropriation Act in its application. Because the government has not used expropriation for the creation of national parks, by policy, for over 30 years, we removed that section from the act. Unfortunately, it had the impact, in the case of leaseholders, such that they didn't have access to the sections of the Expropriation Act regarding compensation if their leases were terminated.

They were very concerned about this. You could read the act such that a lease could be terminated in a case, perhaps without cause, related to the lease, and there was no form of compensation to the tenant, the leaseholder.

We've added new subclause 15(4) to make it clear that if the situation arose where a lease had to be terminated and it was not as a result of violation of some condition of the leaseholder—and it could be because of an ecological thing that happened where suddenly we had to put the priority on the ecology and take action to terminate and shut down something that was happening—then the Expropriation Act would apply in such a circumstance.

This was the situation previously, and when that disappeared, that's when people got concerned. It wasn't our intention to have that happen. We are simply coming back and making it clear that in that case compensation could be applied, and it would be according to the Expropriation Act.

I'll leave it at that. If you want any more details, legal counsel will help out, but that generally is the thrust of what we're doing. I had a number of calls personally on this from leasehold interests and so on. I know what they want, and this is what they want.

The Chairman: Any questions or comments or discussion? If not, I will call G-14.

Mr. Muise, are you ready for the question?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Because of the adoption of G-14, PC-3 falls.

Mr. Mark Muise: The only intervention I would have had is “yes”.

The Chairman: It would have been a very wise intervention.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your kind words.

The Chairman: I understand BQ-9 is still a valid amendment.

[Translation]

Are you going to present amendment BQ-9, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The objective of BQ-9 was to ensure that people's rights would be protected in the case of expropriation. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I think that has been done already.

The Chairman: Thus, BQ-9 is withdrawn.

[English]

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 16—Regulations)

The Chairman: PC-4, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: In this amendment, Mr. Chairman, our concerns come from where it says in the bill that you force someone to report and to fight a forest fire. Well, as I see it, the only person who wouldn't report a forest fire is the person setting it.

Secondly, how do you force someone to fight a forest fire? For example, if you have someone who has a heart condition and you force them to go out and fight a forest fire and they have a heart attack, I think the government or the ministry would be liable.

That's the reason we put forward this amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you.

As I read the bill, it says—

The Chairman: Can you make a reference for the other members, Mr. Limoges?

• 1200

Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay.

The exact lines are line 24 to line 27, page 8. The bill requires:

persons residing or being in the vicinity of such a fire to report it or to assist in its extinguishment;

The “or” seems to be an important word here. It contradicts the concern of the member in that obviously it's an either/or situation.

You could, for example, put it out if it's sufficiently small that you can just put it out, in which case it might not need reporting, and that would suffice. But in a situation where it is large and you would be endangering yourself, obviously you would report it and have it professionally extinguished. I think that's the intention.

Mr. Mark Muise: But the point is, if you are residing in a park and you see a fire, you're going to do all you can, either by reporting or trying to extinguish it, or both. If you're visiting a park, then the same applies. For your safety and the safety of all other people around, you would do the same. So I think it's something that really doesn't need to be there. It's common sense.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We agree. It's not necessary any more. It's not required. This authority is no longer required because of the way fires are fought now.

The government has no problem supporting the amendment put forward in PC-4.

The Chairman: Do I take it, then, with regard to paragraph 16(1)(f), the motion by the PC stands, and we'll go to the vote?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We now move on to G-15.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would invite—

The Chairman: Just hold it a minute. We have a little problem of procedure.

It has been explained to me by the clerk that G-15 as it's presented now should be split, according to procedure, after (f), with a new amendment taking in the rest. However, with unanimous consent we can deal with it in one motion.

Is there unanimous consent to deal with all the matters under G-15 and G-16? If we didn't put it in one clause, G-17 would precede G-16. We need unanimous consent to deal with G-15 and G-16 as one.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: G-15 and G-17 as one.

The Chairman: No, G-15 and G-16.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Toupin, would you just explain it in your own words so that everybody understands?

Mr. Marc Toupin: Sure.

Right now, the amendment identified as G-15 in the package, on page 55, has seven parts to it. What the chair was referring to earlier was that part (g) of amendment G-15 actually comes after G-16, which is the amendment located on page 63 in your package.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine. We can do it that way—15, 16, and 17.

• 1205

The Chairman: Shall we deal with what is presently before you as G-15 and what is presently before you as G-16 together, in one motion? Is there unanimous consent to do this in one motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So we'll deal with G-15 and G-16 in one motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Mélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I am going to proceed step-by-step. If you agree, we will go to the French... Go ahead. That will be easier.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Katz.

Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Legislation and Policy, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): The motion in G-15 refers to one of the regulation-making authorities in clause 16. Paragraph 16(1)(g) refers to the issuance of licences and leases and licences of occupation in park communities, resort subdivisions, outside park communities, and resort subdivisions. I'll proceed through each of them in turn.

The amendment to subparagraph 16(1)(g)(i) is simply to substitute the expression “park communities” for “towns and visitor centres”. Park communities are defined earlier in the bill to include both towns and visitor centres, so it's simply taking the expression and using it consistently throughout the legislation.

Item (b) in the amendment applies to subparagraph 16(1)(g)(ii), which speaks of “resort subdivisions”. The amendment there would be to introduce the word “existing”, which means we would be speaking about limiting the issuance and amendment of leases and licences of occupation to existing resort subdivisions.

Item (c) deals with subparagraph 16(1)(g)(iii), which deals with outside park communities and resort subdivisions. Our amendment there is simply to be precise about outside park communities and existing resort subdivisions. We don't need to modify park communities by referring to existing park communities, because park communities are defined and named in the bill, and a new park community can only be created by an amendment to the statute.

The Chairman: Ms. Katz, “visitor centres” is thus deleted?

Ms. Susan Katz: That's right. We've taken out “towns” and “visitor centres” and put in “park communities”. We also modified “resort subdivisions” so that we refer to “existing” resort subdivisions.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Susan Katz: Further down in that subparagraph, it talks about “places for the accommodation, recreation or entertainment of visitors to parks”, and we are substituting the word “education” for “entertainment” outside park communities and existing resort subdivisions.

Item (d) moves further down into other regulation-making authorities and speaks to paragraph 16(1)(l), which deals with surveying of lands and delimitation of plans for boundaries of park communities and resort subdivisions. What we are proposing in this paragraph is to again substitute the expression “park communities” for “towns” and “visitor centres” and to modify “resort subdivisions” by adding “existing”.

• 1210

Further down in the paragraph we introduce the phrase:

their designation as towns, visitor centres, resort subdivisions or cemeteries and the subdividing of lands so designated.

The amendment is to speak in terms of “their” designation as towns, visitor centres, etc. In other words, we're speaking in terms of the existing park communities and the existing resort subdivisions, so surveyed lands could not be designated to create new towns or resort subdivisions. That's the significance of the “their” designation; it refers back to the existing resort subdivisions and park communities.

Item (e) again moves into the regulation-making authorities. It's an amendment to paragraph 16(1)(n), a regulation-making authority related to the control of businesses. It is proposed here to clarify that the regulation-making authority may apply to activities related to commercial ski facilities referred to in clause 36.

The final item is (f), which refers to paragraph 16(1)(y). What is being proposed here is a technical amendment. There are motions to amend the offences and penalties contained within the bill, so as a result of the amendments being proposed to offences and penalties, there is some restructuring of section 24. The amendment proposed in paragraph 16(1)(y) is simply a consequential amendment to reflect the fact that there is a restructuring of clause 24 proposed in a later motion.

The overall effect then is to control development in parks. Then there are the two particular items on commercial ski facilities and the restructuring of clause 24.

The Chairman: Go on to explain the rest of G-15, G-16 and G-17. Then we'll have a discussion on the whole subject.

Ms. Susan Katz: Should I go to G-17 first?

The Chairman: That's fine.

Ms. Susan Katz: Amendment G-17 is related to the various amendments that are being proposed in paragraph 16(1)(g), as they relate to development in park communities, resort subdivisions, and outside park communities and subdivisions. It's simply a clarification that no leases, licences of occupation, easements or servitudes may be issued or amended pursuant to subparagraph 16(1)(g)(iii), which speaks about development that may happen outside a park community or a subdivision. So the precision is that no lease or licence of occupation outside a park community or resort subdivision may be issued for the purpose of establishment of a school, church or hospital, and no leases or licences of occupation may be issued to create a new park community or a new resort subdivision.

The Chairman: Could we move on to G-16, please?

Ms. Susan Katz: Amendment G-16 refers to subclause 16(3), where there are provisions related to the discretion that may be exercised by a park superintendent in carrying out his or her duties. The extent of that discretion must be specified in the regulation-making authority. The regulations must be quite precise as to what that discretion is and how it may be exercised.

• 1215

The purpose of G-16 is to somewhat, if I may say, constrain or limit that discretion, such that the circumstances in which that discretion may be exercised are also subject to limits, and those limits must be specified in the regulations themselves.

The Chairman: Does the limit substitute for conditions?

Ms. Susan Katz: That's correct.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion on what you've heard?

Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Perhaps just for clarification—actually my first question was taken care of with G-17—what is contemplated in this act with regard to the establishment of new parks? If there is a new park, is there somewhere else in the act that takes care of that, to make sure a new subdivision or park community can exist in that new park, as it is being formed?

Mr. Tom Lee: Let me just quickly summarize. The changes in the regulations limit the application of regulations to the existing towns and resort subdivisions in existing parks. For new parks, they provide for the continued application of three types of regulations. One is for accommodation. If you need an accommodation in a northern park, for example, recreation regulations will still apply. If you need a gas supply, for example, that type of service will be continued.

There isn't any intention to have any new town sites in any parks, or any new resort subdivisions in any parks, but the regulations will provide for the continuation of those basic services.

Mr. Rick Limoges: What would occur then in a situation where we established a new park that already had occupants on the land within the boundaries of the new park, or a community within the boundaries of the new park? Let's say it's going to be in downtown Montreal.

Mr. Tom Lee: Generally, in recent years, we've specifically excluded those communities from the park. Gros Morne is a good example where six or seven communities are basically not included in the park boundaries.

Mr. Rick Limoges: That presupposes that in the future we will continue that; in fact, the legislation doesn't permit anything but that.

Mr. Tom Lee: I believe that is correct.

Lucie, can you help me on that?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière (Legal Counsel, Parks Canada): Yes, that's right.

Mr. Tom Lee: That is correct. The assumption is that we would not have those in any of the future parks.

The Chairman: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Wouldn't that limit your ability to create new parks?

Mr. Tom Lee: Generally, no. We do not foresee that circumstance arising. I should say that if it did arise, when that park came forth for establishment, we would lay out any particular conditions. If there were a requirement, if we ran into that, that's how it would be handled. We would create a special circumstance at the time we legislatively created that particular park. So we would outline if there were peculiar circumstances and so on, rather than retaining a generic clause that could be applied to existing parks. Basically, we're trying to close the door on subdivision of existing parks, and that fundamentally does it.

If we ran into an exception, the way to handle it would be to say, as that legislation came forth, “There is a peculiarity here of the following nature, and the following conditions of the act do or do not apply”.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In reference to clause 36, it refers to schedule 5 as commercial ski areas and then subclause 36(2) refers to the vicinity of Sunshine Village. Is that in a holding pattern before it lands in schedule 5? Is that a ski area in waiting, or is there another area that may win over Sunshine Village?

• 1220

Mr. Tom Lee: No. The two issues are actually quite separate, but in the first case the establishment of regulations to govern commercial skiing was a recommendation of a special panel that looked into that. You may recall Mr. Tilleman, who appeared before committee and worked for one of the ski areas but was representing ski areas generally, proposed that we do add this section on regulations as a necessary way of managing ski areas.

The second aspect with respect to Sunshine is that there is a provision in the existing act that permits the establishment of the boundaries of ski areas to be placed in the act in the form of a regulation.

Sunshine is the only ski area that has not yet had its boundaries so defined, but I think we need to deal with this in a subsequent motion rather than as part of this one. That would be my belief and I'd be pleased to deal with it that way.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is, how would this amendment impact or affect the park communities that currently have lands that are already zoned for development?

Mr. Tom Lee: There wouldn't be any impact. All of those existing park communities have existing subdivisions and there's no intention of adding new subdivisions on unsubdivided land. If you take a case like Jasper, for example, within the town community there are subdivided parcels of land that could be further subdivided. What you can't do is go out and add new parkland by subdividing additional areas of the park. It's containing the footprint, if you like, to the existing footprint.

The Chairman: Is there any other discussion before we move on to a vote on the amendments?

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Proposed amendment G-15 to paragraph 16(1)(y) will only make sense once we have dealt with clause 24. I would therefore suggest that amendment G-15 be stood for the time being. We can deal with it once we have completed our study of clause 24. The same problem does not occur in the case of amendments G-16 and G-17.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If we do not amend clause 24, we could come back to amendment G-15, and thereby simplify the process.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: If we adopt amendment G-15, we would also be adopting paragraph (f), which has to do with clause 24.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: With cannot “uncarry” the clause later on.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We could agree to come back to it if clause 24 does not pass. That would simplify things.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In theory, there would be no further debate on G-15.

[English]

The Chairman: We will stand it. We will stand it until later.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are we standing just paragraph (f) of the amendment, or the whole amendment?

[English]

The Chairman: No. We'll stand the whole clause and come back to it.

[Translation]

Amendment BQ-10, which deals with clause 16, seemed redundant to me. Our legal counsel confirmed my view. If we were to pass something which is already permitted under the legislation, nothing would prevent these organizations from going to the Federal Court. In fact, by naming them, we could limit the rights of those groups that were not named.

I'm wondering whether you would be prepared to accept the fact that this amendment is not really necessary in light of the legal advice we have received. Other law clerks could perhaps clarify this for us.

• 1225

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I understand that at the moment, nothing allows an individual to challenge the content or method of implementation of these regulations. If that is in fact the case, this gives the Minister absolute power, which is not necessarily what the Committee wants to do. If, as you say, this is redundant, I have no problem. However, I am not sure that it is redundant. Could we take the time to check this? Could someone around the table provide us with some information on this, either Mr. Jackson, Mr. Craig or Mr. Toupin?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We are of the same view with respect to application to the Federal Court. There is already provision for recourse. It is generally accepted that the way in which a regulation is implemented can always be challenged. It has not been necessary to specify that, because the power exists. We should perhaps check the reference to the Federal Court; that is probably where the redundance lies.

The Chairman: What is the view of the lawyers from the Department of Justice? Ms. Bourbonnière.

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: When an administrative power that arises out of a statute or a regulation is used, an individual may always challenge the use of this power in the case of abuse, for example, or if the legislation was interpreted incorrectly. This is a common law remedy and this right cannot be taken away except through a clear provision to this effect. There is actually a danger with this type of provision, because someone or some situation might be forgotten and this would mean that that individual would not have the right to challenge the application of a regulation.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, to be quite sure, I would ask that we stand this amendment I'm going to go back to my sources and do some checking. If I get some new information, I will pass it on to the Committee. If not, I will withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: In any case, we will stand clause 16. I hope we will be able to deal with it reasonably soon.

[English]

Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I would also suggest that in putting such a clause into a law, others might argue in the future that since it is specifically in one law and missing in another, then there might be an implication that this right does not exist in the other. We could be adding more fuel to the fire and going in a direction that is not desired.

The Chairman: That is my feeling also, and I have the right to rule the clause as unnecessary and not acceptable. But I'll leave this to Mr. de Savoye to check it out, and I think if he checks it out and he finds the confirmation from his sources, then we'll just proceed accordingly.

(Clause 16 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: We'll go to BQ-11.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chairman, is it NDP-10 and NDP-11?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's PC-5.

The Chairman: Yes, NDP-11.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, it's 10, 11, 12.

The Chairman: No, 10 falls away and....

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just to clarify it or speed things up, we'll pull 10, 11, and 12.

The Chairman: You'll pull 10, 11, and 12. So 10, 11, and 12 are not moved and we'll go on to PC-5.

Mr. Mark Muise: Can I speak to that for a minute before I agree to let it fall, even if it may fall without my agreeing?

The Chairman: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Mark Muise: Can I speak to PC-5 before it falls, even it might fall without my agreement?

The Chairman: You may intervene. Don't speak to PC-5 because it falls, but you may intervene on committee and say what you want.

• 1230

Mr. Mark Muise: Let me do that then.

One of the concerns I have—and the amendment that has fallen came more out of principle than anything else—is that we're taking away some of the power of Parliament and putting it in regulation. What we're doing here is in fact micro-managing, and that concerns me a little bit. That was the reason the motion was put forth. I want to put that on the record. I think it's fine to put processes in place, but I don't think it's legislation that should manage. Parliament should not be losing its powers and its ability to debate things, and that concerns me a little bit. Thank you.

The Chairman: We'll move on to—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: PC-5?

The Chairman: No, it drops.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You pulled it, Mark?

Mr. Mark Muise: No, the chair says it drops.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It drops in what sense?

The Chairman: It drops because of the consequence of....

You see, Mr. Muise, what happens is that there's a contradiction between your PC-5 and parts of the government amendment. The government amendment has not been passed, but if we were to consider yours at this time and pass it, it would mean a problem with the government amendment, which hasn't been voted on, and we agreed to stand.... So when the government amendment is voted on, if it is defeated, PC-5 will stand; if it is voted for, PC-5 will fall. Is that clear?

Mr. Mark Muise: Fair enough.

The Chairman: So right now we'll stand it along with the others. And if G-15, G-16, and G-17 are adopted, then PC-5 will fall. Okay?

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

(On clause 17)—Resource harvesting in certain parks)

The Chairman: We have BQ-12 and BQ-13.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: BQ-11, BQ-12, and BQ-13.

The Chairman: Sorry, BQ-11, BQ-12, and BQ-13.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I see the government has put forward amendment G-18, Mr. Chairman. However, amendment G-18 does not remove the conjunction "and" in the English version at the end of clause 17(1)(d). At least, I do not believe it does. Amendment BQ-11 would correct this little problem. The content of amendments BQ-12 and BQ-13 also appear in amendment G-18. If the government wanted to support amendments BQ-11, BQ-12 and BQ-13, we would also have dealt with amendment G-18, because they are the same.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Perhaps we could deal with G-18.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That does not happen often, Mauril.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm going to check on what my colleague is proposing. Shall we dispose of amendment BQ-11?

The Chairman: Although we are prepared to vote on it, let us first make sure that amendments BQ-11, BQ-12 and BQ-13 replace G-18. That was Mr. de Savoye's suggestion.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: While Mr. Bélanger is checking on that, Mr. Chairman, which will probably take quite some time, I think it is quite clear that at the speed we are advancing, it is quite likely that we will have to sit more. Could you give us some idea about our future schedule?

The Chairman: We will be sitting this afternoon from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Thursday morning starting at 9 a.m.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I understand that you're saying that we will continue studying Bill C-27 on Thursday morning rather than working on the first draft of our report on book publishing. Is that correct?

• 1235

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We are checking on my colleague's proposal; we are even checking the punctuation. If he gives us some latitude on the punctuation, we can pass amendments BQ-12 and BQ-13, rather than G-18.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Fine, and you can do what you like with the punctuation, with my blessing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Your blessing? Good heavens!

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: All right, all right.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I second the motion to pass amendments BQ-11, BQ-12 and BQ-13.

The Chairman: Is there consent to deal with amendments BQ-11, BQ-12 and BQ-13 in a single motion? Is there unanimous consent for this? In that case, we will deal with BQ-11, BQ-12 and BQ-13 in the same motion. Shall amendments BQ-11, BQ-12 and BQ-13 carry?

(Amendments agreed to)

The Chairman: Amendment G-18 falls.

[English]

NDP-13.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, we'll keep the amendment in. Just speaking on it, I think it reflects the fact that the witnesses who represented the aboriginal communities highlighted that in no way did they want to be misconstrued as being opponents to parks. I think they want to be proponents of parks, and any interests they have could easily be addressed by an agreement. If you include them as part of an agreement between the Government of Canada...in this case we have the Government of Canada and the province, but you can also have an agreement with the Government of Canada and the aboriginal governments. I think you could address all the issues they would have in terms of continued activities in such an agreement.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We're going at this from the opposite end our colleague is going at it. First, we think what he's trying to do is cover it in the rest of the act. Second, the words “aboriginal government” might be too restrictive, and I'm sure that's not the intent of our colleague. That's why, at this stage anyhow, the government is not supporting this. So the reasons are that (a) it's covered and (b) the words “aboriginal government” themselves might exclude groups that our colleague, and the committee and the government, would not wish to exclude. That's my reading of it. It's a complex one.

Mr. Tom Lee: I would need to find a specific problem here and I'm not aware of one. I signed an agreement last week with an aboriginal band, the council and chief representing the band. I haven't found any restrictions. I think we have all of the authorities both under this act and the agency act that we need to enter into agreements with aboriginal people. So I can't find a particular problem to address here.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Are you ready to intervene, or I'll give the floor to Mr. Savoye?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just catching up on a similar—

The Chairman: You're catching up on the advice from your senior adviser?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There's another clause that referred to the same terminology. I'm trying to reflect back onto that one. I could come back.

The Chairman: Mr. Savoye.

• 1240

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, in clause 5, we see that a park may be established or enlarged, but that there are two conditions:

(a) Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an incumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the parks;

(b) the government of the province in which those lands are situated has agreed to their use for that purpose.

I think that paragraph 17(1)(e) refers specifically to these parks established in an area pursuant to an agreement between two governments—the Government of Canada and the government of a province. The amendment put forward by my NDP colleague uses very specific terminology. It would read as follows: "between the Government of Canada and the government of a province or an aboriginal government". That means that an aboriginal government could replace the government of a province in order to obtain this type of agreement under which a national park is established. I think this contradicts clause 5. I am not a peaky jurist, but I think this extends the meaning set out in clause 5. That disturbs me.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, are you...?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What is the issue that's trying to be addressed here?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There was a specific reference from the witnesses that, for example, in some communities a secretariat was created at some point in time. There's nothing in the bill that deals with that. What we are trying to include in here is that you don't have to forfeit a park if an agreement can be reached with a first nations government or an aboriginal government in creating a park. Some communities were saying that you need not give up on creating a park if you can reach an agreement with a first nations community in creating a park in that area. We're not eliminating the province's role. We just want it to be inclusive of the aboriginal government that might be in that area.

The Chairman: Mr. Amos.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, this clause is about the regulation-making authorities. It's not fundamentally about authorities to make agreements. It refers to agreements in the context where a regulation-making authority for traditional renewable resource harvesting activities would be appropriate. In the past those activities have been permitted by exception, rather than by either giving the minister the authority to approve them in every case or.... This clause sets up a series of situations in which the government would have regulation-making authority for traditional renewable resource harvesting activities.

Those occur in a number of different ways. In the case of new parks they may occur fundamentally in two ways: one, as part of a federal-provincial agreement, and that is typically with non-aboriginal people. That's the situation in Gros Morne and Wapusk. Those activities also occur, obviously, where a new park is established in an area that is subject to a comprehensive land claim settlement. That's covered in another paragraph here. Those, of course, are different because those are rights that are clearly respected, not things the government agrees to at the time of park establishment, because they form part of a comprehensive land claim, which is protected in the Constitution.

I understand in part Mr. Laliberte's concern. We have tried to address this. I'm presaging your discussion, Mr. Chair, on G-19. Subclause 16(2) had previously referred specifically to activities that come under the settlement of an aboriginal claim. On listening to the presentations by the AFN and others, we realized that could effectively be broadened, as is proposed in G-19, to include cases where aboriginal people have existing aboriginal or treaty rights to such activities. So our sense is that here we're trying to define in an appropriate way the regulation-making power of the government. Whether those activities are rights of aboriginal people coming from a claim settlement or other existing aboriginal and treaty rights, they're clearly covered in the subsequent clause I referred to. This particular clause does focus on federal-provincial agreements and any rights that might be agreed between those two governments, or privileges, more like, than might be agreed at the time of park establishment between the two orders of government.

• 1245

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we can go a little farther and say that the existing rights that our colleague is trying to protect are constitutionally protected, so any regulation that goes against that would of course be contested and eliminated. Because of the comments of Mr. de Savoye, where this amendment could create some confusion between federal-provincial or federal-aboriginal government arrangements to create a park, I'd ask my colleague to perhaps withdraw it or hold on till we've dealt with the next one.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, do you have any comments, or do we call the question?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think everybody understands the intention. It's not taking away the roles, the powers, or the jurisdiction of the provinces or the federal government. But it challenges the federal and provincial governments to recognize that the aboriginal governments in a park area or in a proposed park area need not prohibit the establishment of a park. It can be created just by creating an agreement. It may not be an agreement between Canada and the province. Maybe there's a third party. That's what I've stated before, that the aboriginal communities could be included in those agreements.

But we'll withdraw it because the wording here doesn't reflect it the way I'm trying to argue it. It replaces the role of the province, and that was not our intention. So we would look at it in a different way.

The Chairman: Are you withdrawing NDP-13?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chairman: NDP-13 is withdrawn.

We go on to G-19. Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: G-19 follows from the discussion we've just had. It's clarification for that clause dealing with traditional harvesting rights. We've added some amendments to clarify according to the representations we've received. It's fairly straightforward.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Next is G-20.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's just cleaning up language, Mr. Chairman. Instead of “classes of persons”, we're saying “categories of persons authorized”.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 18—Designation of park wardens)

The Chairman: Are amendments CA-5 and CA-6 withdrawn?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

(Clauses 18 to 23 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 24—Contravention of Act)

The Chairman: We have G-21.

• 1250

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman,

[Translation]

this is a series of amendments to adjust the fines imposed by the bill for various prohibited activities in national parks. Unless there are some questions about the figures and amounts, I would simply say that this is in response to those who said that the fines should be harsh without being outrageous.

The Chairman: Are there any questions on amendment G-21?

[English]

Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: With regard to the amounts for fines, is there any provision, outside of an amendment to the act, that these can be amended? For example, if this is in place for many years and there's inflation, these amounts could be eroded by inflation. Is there any thought given to being able to add a clause there so that we might be able to amend them by some regulation?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: No, not at all. There is no provision in the bill for such an amendment. To increase the fine, we would have to go back to Parliament to do it. I'm not aware of any legislation that allows fines to be increased without going back to Parliament.

Mr. Rick Limoges: That's the tradition...?

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: That's right.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Thank you.

The Chairman: Given your lawyer's remarks, Mr. Lee, and given inflation and the way money depreciates, are you satisfied with the amended figures or should they be higher?

Mr. Tom Lee: I am satisfied with the amended figures. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that at the opening of this bill you asked that we provide the committee with views on increasing them. We've gone over them and we did find ways to make them higher. We believe, in fact, that these are strong. In our experience, I guess, part of the success of this will be the success of the courts in applying fines that are upwards, towards the maximum. Traditionally, as you're aware, they do not. The challenge, really, is to have the court system treat these with the degree of severity that this legislation would put on them—but I'm satisfied, yes.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Could we then call G-21?

Sorry, Mrs. Katz.

Ms. Susan Katz: Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like to make a correction, Mr. Chairman. The French version of G-21 reads as follows in part (a): "par substitution, aux lignes 4 à 6". It should read: "aux lignes 3 à 6, page 16".

The Chairman: So we have a correction to the amendment.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I wanted to make sure committee members knew that.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Katz, do you have any other comments?

[Translation]

Ms. Susan Katz: No, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 24 as amended agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can we come back to 15, 16 and 17?

The Chairman: Can we do that now that clause 24 has been carried, Mr. de Savoye?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I would not dare claim that I could give you the permission to do that. It is yours automatically.

The Chairman: As you know, we're trying to work courteously and in the interest of consensus.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That is what we decided. Mr. Bélanger is quite right: the time has come.

The Chairman: That is what I thought as well. It is true that you had asked for some time to think about BQ-10, which concerns the Federal Court.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Since we will be meeting again this afternoon, after question period, could you give us until then?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes, because you are quite aware that I have stayed here religiously.

The Chairman: Yes, I quite agree.

We will now adjourn until 3:30 p.m.

• 1255

[English]

There are two clauses that have been stood. They are clauses 16 and 2. Regarding clause 16 and the item to be checked, Mr. de Savoye is going to check BQ-10 and come back to us. Then we have to move on the rest of the amendments on clause 16, including and deciding on BQ-10.

Then there's a more important matter, of course, clause 2, which we decided to stand so that there would be a consensus amongst the parties as to which wording we're going to adopt. I'll leave it with you to consult. Hopefully this afternoon we can come back on clause 2 and look at it again.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I believe that when we come back we will have a definition that might have the support of everybody.

The Chairman: That's very useful.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, can we leave our things here?

The Chairman: Yes, we can leave our things here. We are coming back to the same room at 3:30.

I can assure the opposition that your secrets are safe.

Mr. Mark Muise: Oh, of course, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.