CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 20, 1997

• 0913

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.)): Ladies and gentlemen, as the vice-chair of the committee, I would like to call the meeting to order.

We have the notice of meeting. The meeting is to be occurring between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. today. As it's now going on to 9.15 a.m., I've taken the initiative to start the meeting.

The order of reference is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the overview of Parks Canada.

We have appearing before us the Honourable Andy Mitchell, Secretary of State for Parks. Other witnesses are Tom Lee, assistant deputy minister, parks; and Patrick Borby, director general, strategy and plans.

Mr. Mitchell.

Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me say to the committee how pleased I am to have received the invitation and have the opportunity to spend a little bit of time talking about Parks Canada and some of the items we're undertaking.

As you are aware, I assumed my responsibilities this past June as Secretary of State of Parks. Since that time, I've had an opportunity to see a good part of our system and learn a lot about some of the priorities we're pursing within the parks portfolio.

One of the things that I think we probably all share is the importance of our national parks and national historic sites and the view that Canadians take of them. Polling that has been done in the past has indicated that our national parks are seen as one of the most recognized Canadian symbols after the national anthem and Canadian flag.

• 0915

Canadians value our national parks and our national historic sites. We, and I mean that collectively, have a responsibility to ensure that they're there not only for the enjoyment of Canadians today, but that they also remain there for the enjoyment of future generations of Canadians.

I'm going to talk about eight strategic items today in my opening remarks. Having spent a great deal of time on committees in the past, I know that members would like to have as much time as possible for questions as opposed to listening to me ramble on. So I'll try to do this relatively quickly.

We have some overheads to take a look at.

Our eight strategic items are: completing the national parks system, expanding the national historic site system, building the system of marine conservation areas, conservation as it pertains to maintaining ecological integrity, contributing to Canadian identity and to the Canadian economy, finance, our legislative initiatives, and the Parks Canada agency proposal. I want to spend a couple of minutes on that last one because it is a major initiative that we'll be undertaking.

First of all, on completing the national parks system, as you are probably aware, we have as an objective the completion of the national parks system by the year 2000. What that means is that there have been 39 natural regions identified in Canada and we will consider the system complete when there's at least one national park in each one of those regions.

Right now, 24 of the 39 regions are represented. That leaves us with 15 gaps. There are in fact 38 national parks presently existing.

There has been over the last few years progress made on completing our national parks system.

The Pacific Marine Heritage Agreement is an agreement with the Government of British Columbia to set aside land for the establishment of a park in the straits. Wapusk was established in April 1996 and we hope to have it formalized with amendments that we intend to introduce with the National Parks Act sometime early next year. We will also formalize Tuktut Nogait with those amendments. We also have land withdrawals at Wager Bay and at Bathurst Island.

In addition to these accomplishments, we are working on some priorities—North Baffin Island in the Northwest Territories, the Interlake region of Manitoba, Torngat Mountains in Labrador, and Mealy Mountains in Labrador. We're also looking in northern British Columbia and the Yukon.

The next slide graphically gives you a good sense of the progress that we are making in terms of accomplishing and establishing our national parks. In the middle of the page where the line goes straight up, you might notice that the minister responsible for the parks at that time was our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien.

As you can see, he has a very firm commitment and belief in our national parks system and national historic site system.

Moving on to our national historic site system, we have presently in Canada just short of 800 national historic sites that have been recognized. We manage directly, as Parks Canada, about 130 of those. Again, we'll continue to expand that system.

As most of you are probably aware, we have a board that makes recommendations to the government on sites that should be recognized. One of the initiatives that we are in the process of undertaking is to broaden the basis upon which we recognize our national historic sites. Historically, they have represented a re-enactment or a recognition of political and military history in Canada. We want to expand that out to take a close look at our aboriginal communities, our cultural communities, recognizing the accomplishment of women and looking at our economic history—basically getting a better mosaic of Canadian history to be recognized in our national historic site system.

• 0920

The next area is building the system of marine conservation areas. I know this committee has been seized by that initiative in terms of the Saguenay-St. Laurent bill, and I would like to thank the committee for its work on that. I understand you went through clause-by-clause and that the bill will be coming back to the House. I appreciate the timeliness and the work that the committee has done on that.

Like the national park system, we have identified a marine conservation area system consisting of 29 specific areas. Like the national park system, our objective is to find representation in each one of those.

We are the first country in the world to take this type of approach. So far we have established or are in the process of establishing three of these marine conservation areas: the one we just mentioned, Gwaii Haanas in British Columbia, and Fathom Five in Ontario.

We are working in other areas there. The Pacific marine heritage—that, as I mentioned on the land side, is also an agreement with the Government of British Columbia to study a couple of areas where we believe we can have some representation. We have an MOU with the Province of Ontario to look at an area in Lake Superior, and we have an MOU with the Government of Newfoundland for Bonavista.

I believe that sometime in 1998 we can bring forward to Parliament legislation to deal with marine conservation areas as a whole. It would be something similar to the National Parks Act that would give us a legislative framework within which to create new marine conservation areas.

Obviously, one of our priority areas is the whole area of conservation. As I mentioned when I began my comments, the mandate of Parks Canada is not only to ensure the enjoyment of our parks for Canadians today, but to ensure that they remain for enjoyment in an unimpaired state for Canadians of future generations.

That is one of the reasons conservation is a major priority for us, and we're undertaking a number of things in that respect. The State of the Parks Report reviews each park on an ecological basis and looks at the progress we're making or the areas we need to emphasize in order to make progress. A State of the Parks Report will be tabled in Parliament sometime in the next few weeks.

Second, we use management plans for our national parks. The Banff Park plan, which came out in 1997, is what I would call a new generation of park management plans, because we see the ecological concerns, the need for ecological integrity, front and centre in that management plan.

As I'm sure we all remember from reading the red book during the 1997 campaign, one of our commitments is to establish a panel to look at the ecological integrity of all of our parks, and we're in the process of putting that together. They will begin their work in 1998 and hopefully will be reporting 9 to 12 months after they begin.

On the issue of identity and economy, as I mentioned earlier, the national parks are historic sites and are ranked as important symbols of Canada. They enjoy widespread support among Canadians from every region.

The parks are an important economic generator. An estimated $2 billion annually is added to the Canadian economy, primarily through tourism. As the member of Parliament for Parry Sound—Muskoka, I have a national park, national historic site, heritage river and a waterway—the Trent-Severn—all in my riding. I have personal experience in how important the parks system, in its broadest sense, is to our local area.

• 0925

We have put forward a number of priorities in terms of enhancing our role and our identity in the economy. Many of these I have had an opportunity to discuss with Canadians when we discussed the whole issue of the agency. We want to ensure that, through our parks and historical sites system, Canadians have an educational opportunity to learn about our history and about many of the challenges that were faced by Canadians in the past.

We hope to broaden the interpretive education component not just by being able to deliver it to individuals who have an opportunity to visit our sites, but also by using communications technology to ensure that Canadians as a whole have an opportunity to share in that educational experience.

On the tourism side we are forming, and have formed in the past, partnerships with the Canadian Tourism Commission to realize greater economic and cultural benefits. As well, our local entities work with their local communities to enhance the manner in which our sites can contribute to the local areas.

In the area of finance, we in Parks Canada, like the rest of the government, have gone through program review. You will note that we will have reduced our appropriations by just over $104 million by the end of fiscal 1998-99. As you can appreciate, that is a substantial reduction in resources.

Currently about 75% of Parks Canada funding comes from appropriations and about 25% comes from our revenue base.

One of the important initiatives I am undertaking as in my role as Secretary of State for Parks is the development of an agency. The agency is designed in part to provide us with the tools in Parks Canada to continue to carry out our mandate in its fullest sense while having absorbed those reductions in our appropriations.

We have a number of priorities on the financial side. We've made some changes in our user costs for our visitors. That has essentially been put in place. We are moving to full cost recovery on our commercial operations, such as the hot pools and golf courses we have within our system. We are working on the issue of revision to land grants and commercial leases. There's still some work that needs to be done, but we hope to have it in place sometime in the next year.

As part of the agency we will see full retention of revenue within the parks portfolio. Rather than seeing our revenue go into the consolidated revenue fund, it will be available for us in Parks Canada. We are also going to see some more flexibility in the way we deal with our financial regime as part of our move toward agency status. We are also looking at methods that will allow for more participation by Canadians, either individually or corporately, in supporting our parks system.

There's something I have said over and over again, and I'll take an opportunity to say it here when we're talking about finance. It is not the intention of this government to either privatize or commercialize Parks Canada. We believe the maintenance of our special places in Canada is an important trust given to us by Canadians. That stewardship Canadians want to see exercised publicly, and we will continue to do that through our agency and through the oversight of Parliament.

In terms of legislative initiatives, obviously one of them we're in the process of accomplishing, which is Bill C-7. Second, as I alluded to, I hope to bring to the House in the not-too-distant future legislation to establish the Parks Canada agency. Third, we hope sometime in 1998 to bring amendments to the National Parks Act. Those amendments in part will allow for a more streamlined process to establish a national park, so that once we complete the necessary negotiations and arrangements, we can move quickly to the official and formal establishment of a national park and provide the protection it gives.

• 0930

As I mentioned earlier, as well, I hope to present legislation on establishing a framework within which marine conservation areas can be established.

That is an aggressive legislative agenda. We hope to carry that out, and I know that you, my colleagues on this committee, will be an important part of our being able to achieve that with the work we're going to be putting in front of you.

I'd like to close by taking a couple of minutes to discuss the proposal of a Parks Canada agency. As I said previously, this is a hybrid form of government organization that is being developed to allow our parks employees to have better tools to carry out their mandate. It remains fully accountable to the government, fully accountable to the minister and, in turn, to Parliament.

It is allowing us to have some organizational stability. Those of you who know the history of Parks Canada know that it has been subject to a significant amount of organizational and reporting changes over the years. I believe, as do our employees, that it's important to see some organizational stability brought to Parks Canada.

On organizational simplicity, we are indeed flattening the organization and cutting out a number of the reporting levels. We are providing a significant amount of responsibility to the local superintendents. In fact, those individuals will be reporting directly, and will be responsible directly, to the head of agency.

There are going to be some financial flexibilities. As I mentioned, revenue retention is going to be available to the agency. We're also going to put forward a two-year budget. That will allow for expenditure decisions to be made on the basis of the reality that is faced, as opposed to trying to worry about the one-year March 31 deadline.

We are also going to be able to establish a non-lapsing capital fund. So within Parks Canada we will be able to maintain money that will come from the sale of assets, so that won't go into consolidated revenue. We'll be able to maintain that in the parks system for investment in new parks and historical sites down the road.

Let me turn to administrative flexibility. There will be a lot of simplified ways in which we will be doing our business. As I mentioned, it will allow for greater authority at the local level, and it will also allow for the establishment of a separate human resource regime.

Parks Canada will become its own employer, and in conjunction with the unions that represent our employees and the employees themselves, we will develop an HR regime that makes sense for the reality of Parks Canada.

Unlike many government agencies, we operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day under all kinds of conditions from coast to coast to coast. That reality is different from a large part of the public sector, and we need to develop that.

We have spent a lot of time consulting not only with our stakeholders, people who have an interest in parks, but also with our employees on the development of this agency. We have had good support from all sectors, and a great amount of input.

We are moving forward on that in terms of the development, and as I mentioned, I hope to have something to present to my fellow parliamentarians sometime early in the new year.

That is a brief overview of what we're trying to accomplish in Parks over the next little while, Mr. Chairman, and I'm quite prepared to take questions.

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing here before us, and for your very clear and comprehensive overview of the parks system and historic sites.

I'd like to open it for questions. Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just before we get to questions, if the witnesses were available and if there was agreement, I wonder if we might see us concluding at 11.15 a.m., having started at 9.15 a.m. The time for the opposition to be able to ask the minister questions is very valuable.

• 0935

The Chairman: We'll just check if the room is available. This is subject to the minister and his colleagues being available as well.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, thank you very much.

I would like to thank the minister for being here today as well. Would a copy of the slides we just saw be available to the committee members?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Yes, I could get them printed.

Mr. Jim Abbott: That would be very helpful.

I have a very deep appreciation of parks, living in a constituency with four mountain parks. Having lived there since 1974, I have an appreciation of the environment, the ecology, and the wildlife. I really value the parks in the area I live in. Therefore I have a bit of a commitment to parks.

One of the concerns I have, though, is something of a lack of accountability to myself as a member of Parliament in that area for those four mountain parks and also a lack of accountability to myself as a parks critic for my political party.

I refer by example to the fact that I raised the issue of the field maintenance yard casually with you in the summertime. Then I went to the park office in Kootenay National Park in late September, I believe it was. I asked them for detail as to what was going to be happening with respect to the maintenance compound, because we're talking about the Trans-Canada Highway. We're talking about massive changes. I then raised the issue with you in conversation in October. I raised the issue again on November 5 in the House of Commons.

I thank you for responding to me today, November 20, with this letter that you have now provided me this morning, but I haven't had time to really look at it. I note in the response that this regime of the snow clearing started in October. I would suggest, Minister, that this kind of response to a legitimate request for information by the sitting member of Parliament who also happens to be the parks critic is inadequate.

I don't know if you want to make a comment on that.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Well, I'm going to comment on both of your comments, because you asked about the whole issue of accountability with parliamentarians. One of the things that I think Parks does a good job on is ensuring that there is accountability to Parliament. There are a number of ways that we are doing it and will be doing it.

We submit a summary of our corporate plan in Parliament and parliamentarians have an opportunity to review that. Each of our sites produces—or will be producing, because this is something that is being phased in—a management plan. It's a five-year plan for the parks. Those management plans for the parks and for national historic sites, because we're going to be making that change, are tabled in Parliament, giving parliamentarians an opportunity not only to review the system as a whole but to review the issues in individual parks.

In terms of accountability, I would say we have given direction to our field superintendents that as they develop those management plans they are to do it with public consultation. I know we as members of Parliament are welcome to participate in that, but I think even more importantly, the general public has an opportunity to be part of those management plans.

Every two years we table the State of the Parks Report, which is basically a report on our system. It's going to deal with ecological integrity, commemorative integrity, and some other items as well. Again, this is being tabled in Parliament. It becomes a public document. You as parliamentarians have an opportunity to be critical of it or to acclaim it if you believe it's great. We are self-critical within that. We identify areas where we believe we can do better.

Again, as part of the agency, what we will be doing is that every two years we will be having a national stakeholders meeting to allow the Canadian public to tell us as Parks Canada what it is they think we're doing well, what it is they think we can do better, what it is they think we ought to deal with that we're not dealing with at all. Of course we also have the estimates, and all new parks need to come before Parliament, etc.

• 0940

So on the issue of accountability, I believe many of the tools are there. On the issue that you specifically brought up on that, the answer should have got to you quicker, and I will endeavour to make sure that it does.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Jim Abbott): I'm just suggesting that your response is good in terms of the macro accountability. I suggest that the practices of Parks Canada at this point are severely lacking in terms of the micro accountability. I have other questions that I won't take the time of the committee to go into today.

In terms of accountability as well, though, take Field as an example. Then I'm going to be talking about the Banff airstrip.

Field is a classic example where we have a town site that has a trailer park. The trailer park was deemed to be expendable by Parks Canada under whatever reports there were. As a result of pressure from me and local residents, Parks Canada agreed that they wouldn't shut it down quite yet because there was a requirement for low-cost housing for people providing services in the park.

But there was something they didn't say. I find this really regrettable. By the way, we aren't going to be giving occupancy permits. In other words, what this basically means is that as long as you are the current holder of that piece of property that the trailer is sitting on, you can live there. But should you get a job outside the park or you have to move away, you can't sell that trailer, you have to move that trailer.

In other words, on one side of the coin, Parks Canada agreed to back off and say fine, but on the other side of the coin, in actual practice, they made it impossible for the continuation of the park.

That has a direct relationship with the Banff airstrip. Minister, you know full well that there was an injunction brought against you, your agency, your employees, and any agents of the park such that you were not to shut down the Banff airstrip. Yet they went out and effectively shut it down by insisting on permits.

We now know, as a result of the court judgment that came down a couple of days ago, that Parks Canada was wrong. We believe that you are wrong. The judge has now said you were wrong.

Now today, there is a court case in which I fully expect that the application of these tickets to the pilots who were landing there is going to be overturned by the judge as well.

Minister, we can't have a situation where you, as the head of Parks Canada, and your officials are thumbing your noses at a court injunction.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Let me respond to that, hopefully in the order that it came forward.

On the issue in Field and the airstrip, talking on a broad perspective, it goes back to what I said in my opening comments.

In Parks Canada, we have a dual responsibility, and those dual responsibilities call upon us to often find a balance. On the one hand, we're trying to ensure that we have our parks for the enjoyment of Canadians today. But that isn't our only obligation. We also have an obligation to make sure that those parks remain there unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The fact that we have both of those requires us to make important decisions about the ecological integrity of those sites.

In terms of the trailer park in Field, the study indicated that this is an important wildlife corridor. You and I may debate whether it is or isn't an important corridor. I'll be honest with you that I probably don't have the scientific knowledge to do that, but I have to depend on the people who do have that and who report to me.

Having come to that conclusion, we then need to find the best way to bring it into effect. I think the way of doing it gradually, as the occupancy ends by a particular person over time, will free up the corridor. I think that's an appropriate way to do it.

As for the airstrip—I know you and I have had these discussions before—I believe, from my understanding of the ruling that came down, that the situation that existed before is similar to the situation that exists now. The judge said it's appropriate, reasonable, and within the law for Parks Canada to set certain rules governing the operation of that airport. It's when those rules are broken that a ticket is issued. The judge did say in his ruling that before those airports could be decommissioned, that is, disassembled, there would have to be an environmental assessment take place. I believe that is what the courts have spoken to.

• 0945

You are right there will be a court action taking place today in Alberta, and I will never, ever assume to suggest what the court may or may not decide. I'll wait for their judgment.

The Chairman: Excuse me, can we come back to you and just give a chance to the others?

[Translation]

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Minister, the first thing I am wondering about is that if you want to get rid of the management of national parks, wouldn't it have been better, instead of establishing a new agency, to give that management back to the provinces? Wouldn't it have been an option which your department could have looked at?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: First of all, I wouldn't use the phrase “giving it back to the provinces”. The management of the national parks has always been a national responsibility since the first park was established in 1885.

I believe there is a role for provincial parks. All of our provinces and territories have provincial parks. Canadians across this nation consider it important that we designate areas as national parks and national historic sites, and I believe that is an appropriate way to go. The vast majority of Canadians in all regions see that as an appropriate thing to do.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: If I am not mistaken, one of Parks Canada's objectives was to increase the level of visitation, either for economic reasons or just to encourage more people to visit our national parks. In practice, how will you reconcile conservation and park maintenance objectives with increased visitations? Did you look at some concrete actions about that?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: That is a very good statement of the challenge we face in Parks Canada. Yes, we would like to see increased visitation, but we accept the fact that there are limits upon which you can do that. One of those limits is the ecological integrity of a particular site. You may come to a conclusion that a particular site cannot take on any more visitations. But indeed we have many sites in many parks where we are quite capable of having increased visitation and we would of course like to see that occur.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Minister, I am very interested in knowing something about Part III of 1997-98 Estimates. On page 50, we can read that corporate management services expenditures will be raised from 81 million to 85 million dollars, that is 4 million dollars over what it was in 1997, including 1,1 million for contributions to employee benefit plans. Could you explain us the reasons of such an increase?

At a time of budget constraints, should we not devote more resources in the field and less in department offices?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Thank you for your question. I'm going to ask Pat if he would come in on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Patrick Borby (Director General, Strategy and Plans, Parks Canada): I have no ready answer to give you about the reasons of that increase. However, I would suggest that the costs related to contributions to employee fringe benefits are increasing as our workforce, our employees, are growing older and older. Those increases may also take into account some early retirement payments which were offered to employees in the past. In the overall public service, the costs which relates to retirement plans are higher than they used to be, and they probably reflect into the contributions to employee benefit plan figures.

I could not explain extensively today the overall changes which were brought in terms of expenditures related to that specific program. I would have to check every item in detail.

The Chairman: Mr. Borby, could you provide that information to Ms. Girard-Bujold?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, but it only accounts for one million dollars. However, you were talking of an increase of 4 million dollars. The one million increase is for contributions to employee benefits, but your total budget of corporate services was increased by 4 million dollars. A one million increase looks reasonable, and I admit that your explanation was good. But we are talking of 4 million dollars. Where will those three other million dollars go?

Mr. Patrick Borby: I cannot give you a detailed answer on that, but I can tell you that for the overall department we have a plan aiming at a 25% reduction in our expenditures for corporate services, which also applies to Parks Canada.

• 0950

The implementation of that plan will be spread over a two-year period ending after next year. Our corporate services, which are sometimes called "overhead" in English, have been fairly reduced. We are surely not putting more money than before into that kind of services.

But you must also know that that item applies to technical services as well, including archaeological and conservation works and the development of new displays for our historical sites. Although those expenditures are identified as technical services, they are in direct support of our objectives related to the presentation and the protection of our national parks and national historical sites.

The Chairman: Mr. Borby, could you forward some precise details about that to Ms. Girard-Bujold through our clerk?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, as the minister, I will make the commitment that the member will receive that information, and in good, timely order.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: If I may, I would have another supplementary question.

The Chairman: Please go ahead.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: In the Supplementary Estimates (A) for 1997-98, there is a 10 million dollars supplementary expenditure under operating budget carry forward. Could you give us some explanations about how you intend to use those funds?

Mr. Patrick Borby: In the last couple of years, the government has introduced a new policy on budgetary process which now allows departments to carry forward up to 5% of their operating budget yearly. For example, when a particular project is being delayed and cannot be completed before the end of a fiscal year, the amounts already allocated will no longer be lapsed and put back into the consolidated revenue fund, but will be available for expenditure purposes during the following year.

For example, in the past, if it was impossible to complete a study before March 31 in a given area of a national park, the amounts allocated for that study was lapsed. We now have a policy which allows us to carry forward from one year to the next one up to 5% of our operating budget. Those amounts are therefore reinvested during the next year into projects related to particular parks or sites.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: So you are saying that those 10 million dollars we can see here have already been allocated during the previous years and that you are now allowed to get them out of the budgets of the last couple years.

Mr. Patrick Borby: No, that policy only applies to the amounts which have not been spent during the last fiscal year.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is only the surplus of last year budget. So, those 10 million dollars were not spent in 1996-97 and are being carried forward into 1997-98 budget in order to be used then for the expansion of your park system.

Mr. Patrick Borby: That amount had been provided for projects which were not yet completed or for expenditures which had not yet been made on March 31. Instead of finding ourselves in the position of seeing those amounts lapsed or of running the risk of being brought to use them for worthless projects for fear of loosing those moneys, we are now allowed to use them during the next year in order to be able to achieve the objectives which had been set for that year.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: But it actually applies only to the operating budget and to quite specific projects?

Mr. Patrick Borby: Exactly, it applies only to the operating budget. For the capital budget and for major capital projects, it is a bit more difficult and complex. Once our new agency is established, we would like to have the same possibility so that, for example, if we were to wait for the ice to thaw before making some repair works on a lock and that the ice happens to thaw later than normally, the amount put aside for those repairs would not lapse at the end of the fiscal year and would be available from April 1 or 15 or in June, whenever the work can be done.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: May I ask a short supplementary question?

The Chairman: Yes, but please be very brief.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You are telling me that those 10 million dollars could help you to realize the creation of your agency. Is that really what you said?

Mr. Patrick Borby: Those 10 million dollars are spread among several responsibility centers throughout the country, for all our historical sites...

Mr. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: And not for the creation of the agency?

Mr. Patrick Borby: ...for small projects.

Mr. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: All right, I understand. Thank you, that's perfect.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like first to thank the minister for his remarks.

[English]

I have two questions. My first question relates to marine parks. I've had the interesting opportunity to work on this one, and it's something very interesting. Coming from Nova Scotia and recognizing that quite an industry seems to be developing...and it's not just an industry, but scientific research in regard to whales, whale-watching and all that takes part in that. From the information I received from your department, one part was being looked at in the Fundy region, but it's more on the New Brunswick side. I was wondering whether anything is being thought of or looked at on the Nova Scotia side.

• 0955

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I know one of the areas is the Scotia Shelf, which is in the Atlantic out from Nova Scotia. That's one of the 29 areas we've identified. We're undertaking studies in that area. I think there are three potential sites in that area, which we would want to take a look at, hopefully to establish.... There is a map of the 29 areas. I don't know whether I have it with me, but I'll send it to your office and you can see exactly where we have identified those sites.

Mr. Mark Muise: That would be great.

Second, I had the opportunity to travel to British Columbia last week. One of the comments that came up was on the Banff airstrip and how terribly important it is to pilots throughout that area. Because of the mountains, they explained to me, the weather patterns change drastically in a very short period of time. That airstrip is something that's terribly, terribly important to all flyers in the area. I'm wondering whether you can explain to the committee if there's any chance of the department's changing its mind or doing anything different there.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Before the department made its decision, a fairly substantial study was undertaken by Transport Canada on the safety issue. They provided a report to us in 1995, saying that in their opinion the closure of the airport would not have an impact on safety in that area. That was obviously an important consideration as we moved toward determining what position we would take in respect to the airport.

Mr. Mark Muise: The reason for closing—was it based on safety, ecological, or environmental reasons?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: It was ecological and environment reasons. If you've been to Banff, and probably many of us here have been, you'll know there are the mountains, the river, the town, the highway, and then there's a small corridor within which the airstrip sat, as does the cadet camp, as does the corrals, etc.

The thought was that we were plugging the valley so that wildlife could not properly move up and down and that a corridor needed to be opened up to allow this to happen. Once that decision was made, the corridor needed to be opened and a series of things that were in the corridor had to be removed. The driving forces were ecological and environmental, to allow for the movement of wildlife up and down the corridor.

Mr. Mark Muise: As much as that is terribly important and parks are important, and I recognize it and support it, lives and people's safety are very much a concern as well. If you're in a single-engine aircraft, the motor lets go, and that seems to be the only place to come down, what do you say to those people?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Well, there are two points on that.

First, the regulations that presently govern airports don't preclude an emergency landing. If you make an emergency landing, you're obviously not going to be ticketed.

Again, the whole issue of safety is of significant concern. The study was undertaken to examine exactly what the safety ramifications were. If an emergency landing is required, there's no ticketing and somebody will receive a permit to take the plane back out.

Mr. Mark Muise: You're saying, then, that the airstrip will in fact remain there and it'll still be available for an emergency.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: It's not our intent to maintain an airstrip there in the long term, but if somebody is in trouble with their aircraft, they're going to choose the best possible location to set that aircraft down. We're not going to preclude anything like that.

As I said on the safety issue, it was an important consideration for Parks Canada and that's why Transport Canada was asked to undertake the review.

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

• 1000

The Chairman: Mr. Mills, Mr. Saada and Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, you did a fabulous job today. On one of your slides you talked about the $2 billion economic impact on the economy that comes from the Parks Canada experience. I wouldn't expect you to have the formula on how that number was developed, but I would appreciate it if you could ask your officials to give me the model or the formula you used to develop that end number. I would find that very useful.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'll undertake to get that to you, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: The second thing, and this is more of a local issue, has to do with a large tract of land in downtown Toronto called the Downsview airforce base. It's approximately 600 to 700 acres. I don't know whether it was a red book or a time gone by, but I recall that the Prime Minister of Canada thought it would be a good idea to consider whether that could become a national park.

Is that the kind of thing your department would look at and review the possibilities and prospects of considering?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'm not familiar with Downsview other than having seen it from the air, but it's not the type of thing that would become a national park. We're there to represent a specific ecology, a specific set of species that may be there, so that generally wouldn't fall into the realm of what we would consider a national park, either in size or the type of things we would be protecting.

The other possibility within our program is a national historic site, but I don't know the history of it and that's not directly a governmental decision. The historical board would have to analyse that and take a look at it and see if it would be appropriate.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Saada, Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Abbott and Madame Bujold.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I have a brief comment to make before putting my question. Ms. St-Hilaire asked if we had looked at transferring those responsibilities to the provinces instead of giving them up to an agency. But, if I am not mistaken, there are 10 provinces within Canada. Therefore, if one wants to eliminate duplication, it would probably be better for him to avoid a ten fold increase. It would in fact be more efficient to stick to a single agency.

My question is very simple but somewhat technical. Yesterday, we were proceeding to the clause by clause study of bill C-7 creating the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park and providing for some responsibilities to be granted to the minister, in particular to enter into negotiation with provinces in the event of rearrangements. Will that responsibility be conferred to the agency or will it remain in the minister' hands? If the agency is given the responsibility to carry on those discussions, has the equivalent been provided for by the province? What will be the actual process?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: First of all, let me say that as a matter of course Parks Canada, either in establishing parks or undertaking any significant activity, consults at length with its partners or potential partners, be that a province, an aboriginal group, a first nation or the community within which it would be operating. We would certainly be doing that in the formulation of any new marine conservation area or any new national park or historic site.

In terms of the role of the agency in dealing with a province in this particular example, the agency and the head of the agency is responsible for carrying out the mandate of Parks Canada. The development of the policy remains within the ministry and with the minister, and that's one of the ways we've ensured that there's political accountability for the decisions we make. We're not farming that out. We're maintaining that as a government and as parliamentarians.

• 1005

If a situation were to come down about a policy decision, it would be minister to minister between the federal minister and their provincial counterpart.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Just to better understand then—it's my fault if I haven't done so the first time—there is, I believe, a provision for a management plan to take place within the framework of the act. Is this management plan the responsibility of the minister directly or of the agency first?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: What would take place is that the local field superintendent, in consultation with the broad-based community and their employees and taking into account the existing policies of Parks Canada, would develop a management plan. That management plan would be approved first by the head of the agency. It would then need to receive ministerial approval, and it would be tabled in Parliament.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Very good, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'm interested in this new kind of document that has been put out with the help of the Auditor General. I think for the first time in the specific case of Heritage Canada, we have the performance reports, which I now understand will be coming out all fall. We are urged by the Auditor General to make use of these in the standing committee, so I formally wish to make use of it.

The document came out rather conveniently a couple of weeks ago. I went through the parks section. I guess this is the first time around, and it seems a little thin, if I may say so. I also assume that when agency status comes, there will be a separate one of these documents.

Arising from that, how attentive is Parks Canada to outcomes and measuring performance? I'm thinking of one particular instance that's perhaps more measurable than how you are doing on the ecosystem or something like that: visitors.

First of all, I guess it's a measurement of success if you get a lot of visitors. That's the situation. You also indicated that there's a problem if you get too many visitors in certain sites.

Do you actually have published figures that say Banff could take x more in winter or that we could put a lot more into Wood Buffalo National Park if we only knew how to get them there? Do we have an upper limit on what we're going to do at Ellesmere Island National Park Reserve? Do those benchmarks exist as performance measures? If they don't, should they or will they? That would be one question.

Do you do other calculations? For example, following up on Mr. Mills' question about tourism, I notice that you measure the satisfaction of visitors, which oddly enough seems very high, although I gather you're doing the measuring.

Do you also do surveys that tell you where all these folks come from and then try to figure out what...? Do they come exclusively from Japan to go to Banff? Do you do that sort of calculation as well in terms of economic impact?

Finally I guess the question is, do you do cost per visitor? Do you try to get that down?

Those are three sets of questions that deal with performance.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Generally speaking, that type of detailed information is a subject that's discussed in the individual management plan of the individual site. Different sites have different market conditions within which they operate.

Take, for instance, Georgian Bay Island National Park, which is in my riding. It has 8 million people within a 250-mile radius. It certainly takes a approach that's different from what we might have in one of our northern parks in terms of its visitation.

The management plan itself deals with things like costs, visitations, satisfaction, the types of marketing plans that they would undertake for a particular site, the types of activities they would undertake to enhance their visitor satisfaction, etc.

It's not done in isolation, because the field superintendents, once they complete a management plan, need to have the head of the agency and the management board that supports the head of the agency to accept that as appropriate on behalf of the agency.

Then, most importantly, at the end of the yearly cycle, that same individual is required to come back and defend the results of whether they achieved or didn't achieve their management plan.

• 1010

On the issue of visitation, there are a number of factors involved in it, some of which are controllable, some of which are not. If during the month of July there's nothing but rain in Muskoka, not that it ever happens that way—

Mr. John Godfrey: Not in Lake Joseph, anyway.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: —the figures are going to be down at GBI. It's the same thing in the mountain parks. If the weather conditions are not sound, there might be problems.

One of the most important things in terms of visitation is that the field superintendents have to operate their unit by taking into account the market within which they're operating. If they don't establish a competitive regime, they're going to have difficulty. That's why I believe very firmly in pushing that type of authority or planning down to the local level, where the decisions that are to be made make sense for the market within which the person is operating. That's the person who should know the market the best.

Mr. John Godfrey: I guess that kind of information, though, is all quite micro. There is a macro sense that if we're heavy there, we're light there, we should be doing more. You are running a business. Will that kind of information eventually make its way into a document like this?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Yes, and you're right to point out that is something new. As we have more experience with it, we intend to have it beefed up with some more information. I'm more than happy to receive suggestions from all members of Parliament, as they work with these documents, on how we can make them better, more meaningful, more effective.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

I'd like to go back to an issue. I have all sorts of questions from all over Canada, but I just can't let this one go.

Do you see what happened with respect to the trailer court in Field—I think I have your quote correctly—as being “a responsible way to shut it down”? I see it as a back-door way, that Parks Canada went about doing something they in effect said they weren't going to do.

The people in the town of Field and I, as their member of Parliament, thought Parks Canada indeed had backed off, but they effectively carried on with shutting it down in spite of the fact they gave the impression they weren't going to shut it down.

The same thing applies to the Banff airstrip. There was an agreement it was going to be held in limbo until the court case...which we now have as of a couple of days ago. Then all of a sudden Parks Canada effectively started harassing the pilots.

I have taken the time to fly in there, as you may know, in the vain hopes of getting ticketed. Unfortunately your wardens were out doing more important things that day. So I'm very familiar with it, and your position that it plugs the valley just doesn't fit.

Minister, the airstrip is not paved, the airstrip is infrequently used. Wildlife move predominantly at night under cover of darkness. It's a VFR airport, so there is no air traffic at night. As a matter of fact, any animals that do happen to appear around there are very happy to sleep under the wings of the parked aircraft. So the environmental or ecological reason for shutting it down—I'm sorry, but I think I have a very, very strong feeling it's crazy.

I would ask this. If, and again I'm using your term “disassembling the airstrip”, you are going to disassemble the airstrip, and because the airstrip is basically a field that is maintained so that small aircraft can land, and we know that being a living organism, shoots will come up out of the ground and poplar trees and whatever will grow, what would you say to your Parks Canada employees who were forced to land there on November 10? Would you say sorry, we just decided that we would let the poplar trees grow in the way of the place you want to land? They can't land on the four-lane highway beside it, with 18-wheelers.

Say that was your crew, with a plane chartered by Parks Canada, who took off from Springbank, who were going to be going back to Springbank, who ran into bad weather, who had no choice but to land. What would you say to them at 14,000 feet if you let poplars grow in the middle of the airstrip?

• 1015

Mr. Andy Mitchell: There were a number of components there. I want to answer one of them by quoting from the judgment that came down last week, and it addresses the issue of doing things through the back door and not letting people know. To quote from the judgment, “there has been an overwhelming mass of consultation about the decision to close the airstrips, and there is no point in having more”. That's from the judge who made the decision, so I wouldn't accept that Parks Canada doesn't do the consultation, doesn't do the work, with folks.

On the issue of whether the airstrip itself causes an impediment to wildlife movement, as I said earlier in my testimony, there is a bulk of science. I'm not competent enough to do that science because I'm not a scientist and don't have the necessary education, but I have to depend on that science. I accept it for what it says, but from what you're saying, you don't accept it. I guess that's fair enough. Different folks are going to have different opinions about a piece of science, but the science has been done and it is there and it suggests that we need to have a corridor.

On the safety issue that you're bringing up, I'll go back to the fact that a Transport Canada report said there should be no impact on overall safety for pilots operating in that area, and that there are alternatives within x number of kilometres. However, there are situations that can happen anywhere in Canada where pilots may find themselves in trouble and there won't be an airport. They're going to have to try to make it to the next available site or, if it's a small enough plane, to use what may be available. Pilots face that circumstance no matter where they fly in Canada, because there isn't an airport every mile or mile and a half.

In terms of the ecological side, the science is there. In terms of the consultation, even the judge who ruled said it was extensive. In terms of the safety, a study was done. In terms of the judge's ruling, it said we were able to enforce our regulations in that respect. So I believe Parks Canada is dealing with this issue in a responsible manner.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Gros Morne National Park is not completed yet in terms of the agreement between the federal government and the province. What is the target date for that completion?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Do you mean to go within the act or...?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes. I understand that there are a number of outstanding issues that Parks Canada committed to that have not been completed, and until they are completed the province will not sign off on this and it will not officially become a park. Is there a target date for that?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: When we table the amendments to the National Parks Act, included in that will be the necessary statutory provision to incorporate all of the parks that are ready to be incorporated. We hope to do it at that time.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'd like to talk about moose.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Okay.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Moose are not native to the province of Newfoundland. They were introduced around 1906, I believe it was, and they have gravitated toward Gros Morne National Park. I believe the count is in the neighbourhood of 7,700 moose. They are absolutely magnificent animals. They are just wonderful. Not being a hunter, I don't see them as meat but as wonderful, magnificent statues. They're fabulous animals, but they're eating the park to death. Because of the type of vegetation in the park, it's just a smorgasbord for them, and they're quite literally eating the park to death.

• 1020

Would Parks Canada consider a scientific cull, in other words, the actual removal or shooting of the moose? If so, how would you see handling that?

I emphasize that I am not a hunter, so I do not see these animals as meat. On the other side of the coin, if there was a cull what would you do with the animal?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: The management of the wildlife within a particular park is an important part of what we do. We do it in other places. For instance, in Point Pelee we have a deer herd we need to manage.

What would happen is there would be a recommendation made by competent people with some of the scientific knowledge to say specifically this is the size of the herd that the park can support. The herd exceeds that by x amount, and here are our recommendations about how we would deal with it.

I would be guided, first of all, by some experts providing me with a set of options on how that could best be done and what the appropriate size of the herd should be. Parks Canada undertakes this type of management activity on an ongoing basis. That's one of our responsibilities, and we have that type of expertise within our organization.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm not asking for a commitment. I'm really not trying to put you on the spot on this one; I'll come to putting you on the spot later.

On this particular problem, on the basis of scientific data and evidence, Parks Canada would consider the possibility of culling or bringing the herd size down. I suggest the main reason is because the animal is not indigenous to Newfoundland.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: That could very well be so. I don't know what kind of impact it would have on the size of the herd that it isn't indigenous to Newfoundland. There are a whole series of activities that can be done to reduce the herd, and we would have to examine them and undertake what's best.

I think the point you're trying to make is that we do need to manage the wildlife within our parks. If it's being destructive, then we need to take remedial action. We are faced with this from time to time in Parks Canada, and if we are faced with it here, then we'll undertake that kind of action.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You would be prepared to do that, if required.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: We'll be prepared to do from Parks Canada's perspective what we need to do to maintain our parks in an appropriate way. If a particular species is becoming destructive to the environment there, then we're going to have to deal with it.

The Chairman: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I want to ask you a question about the national historic site. Are you also responsible within that area for the monuments, the plaques and all the other things that go with the national historic sites?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: What is your department doing to promote these national historic sites?

I was at one of these unveilings on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage a couple of months ago in my riding. Heritage York actually came up to me and pointed out that there has not been an updated book of the plaques or the monuments in the last 10 years.

I've watched your figures there and the money has been put out. If there is money left over in this budget, is there not some way to update this book? If they are historical, and I truly believe they are and they are important, can we not find some way to make Canadians and tourists around the world aware of these plaques?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I couldn't agree with you more. One of the conclusions that came from our agency consultations, from stakeholders and even from our employees as well was that we need to do a better job in education and interpretation, not just for the individuals who have the opportunity to visit the sites but also for the broader population of Canadians.

Of the almost 800 sites we manage directly 130. On those, as we do with our parks, we develop a management Within that management plan the individual responsible needs to develop a strategy for the interpretive side, the marketing side, to attract individuals to those sites.

• 1025

Having said that and having a site within my own riding, I think it would be important for us to find ways to better promote it. I think that's an obligation that we have, because it is something that is important to Canadians and we need to tell them about it. I agree.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: If there is any money in your budget, I would urge you to do it almost annually. With the millennium coming, perhaps your department would consider this as a project within the educational sphere, that there is an updated book, and then somehow work towards that.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Tom has just given me a little note here on a couple of things that are happening right now. We're working with the Discovery Channel, which is one of the specialty networks, to have a series on our national historic sites to give some publicity that way. The plaques are on the SchoolNet system, so our young people have the opportunity to access it that way, and we continue to work with the Canadian Tourism Commission on some of these initiatives.

In my own area, for instance, Bethune House works with the local tourism development folks to include it as part of the overall Muskoka experience, and I think that needs to happen on an ongoing basis across the country.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Lee, when you say they are on the net, is it the updated version? There is all this information and plaques and historic sites are constantly being designated. Is there a procedure in place to maintain something like that and keep it updated?

Mr. Tom Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks, Parks Canada): The information that is on there now is up to date because it was put on in the last year or year and a half. But there is a terrific challenge here and we will have to expand our capacity to do this.

The interest in our material that is on the Internet—there were 17,000 hits in the month of July, and almost 700,000 pages of material were reviewed through the computer system. It's exploding, but it's the way to go, for sure.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Madame St-Hilaire.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I would like to respond to the comments of my colleague, Mr. Saada. Although I have a lot of respect for him, I think he probably did not understand the meaning of my intervention. If the parks were managed only by the provinces, there would be no duplication at all.

Mr. Minister, with the budget cuts, parks and historical sites have probably been brought to raise their fees in order to increase their revenues. You agree with me that Canadian people are already largely contributing to the financing of national parks through their taxes. Have you looked at putting a limit on the raise of fees paid by visitors, so that everyone may have access to our national parks and national historical sites? Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: First of all, in terms of our fees, there's a—

A voice: There's the 30-minute bell, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We'll be checking the time. It's a 30-minute bell, so I guess

[Translation]

we must have at least ten minutes to go to the House.

[English]

Excuse me, Mr. Minister. We'll have to take about ten minutes to get there, so

[Translation]

we'll let you know when we must go.

[English]

Just go ahead, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: On the issue of fees, we pay for the maintenance and establishment of our national parks and historic sites on behalf of all Canadians. That comes out of appropriations. If a particular Canadian asks for and wants a particular service that's of benefit to them individually as opposed to collectively, they would be subject to a fee for that.

Incorporated in that, however, are two other components. One has to do with the issue of affordability, and I think we have to keep that in mind when we establish our fees. We don't want to price our parks out of access to Canadians. Secondly, a park doesn't operate in isolation; it operates within a marketplace. Again, that marketplace will oftentimes dictate that fees have to be maintained at a particularly low enough level, otherwise people simply won't come.

• 1030

Generally speaking, that's the basis upon which we establish fees and those are the things we consider. Let me assure you that the need to have our parks accessible to Canadians is a priority for me.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise,

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold and then, Mr. Abbott.

[English]

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

Mr. Minister, you mentioned that you have 39 park areas designated and you have 24 in place now, so there are 15 outstanding. How realistic is it to expect that by the year 2000 you will have the 15 additional parks in place? That's less than three years away.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: There is the possibility that we won't have them all in place by the year 2000, but I'm not going to let myself off the hook by changing my objective. That's my objective. We're going to work towards that objective and do the best we can to achieve it. If it takes a little longer than that, then we'll keep going at it.

Mr. Mark Muise: I like your answer.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Minister, in Quebec city, the National Battlefields Commission made major expenditures for the embellishment and decoration of the Plains of Abraham. Quebec residents have requested better access to the site, and, more specifically improvements to the entrance via Gilmour hill and to the parking lots. When will you give a positive answer to their request? Don't you think it would be normal that people have a very easy access to such a beautiful site, especially when one considers that major improvements have just been brought to that site?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: The national battlefield site is not within the scope of Parks Canada; it's a separate commission that doesn't report through Parks Canada. It reports through the Department of Canadian Heritage. I will pass your concern on to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I will ask that this be looked into.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'd like to make the transition from moose to spruce. In Riding Mountain National Park they are in the process of removing some very magnificent trees. For the sake of time, we won't discuss whether they should or they shouldn't be, but they are removing them. My understanding is that these magnificent spruce with two-foot and three-foot in diameter butts, a hundred feet tall...this magnificent wood is destined for firewood. Is that right? I find that unbelievable.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'm not familiar with that situation, Mr. Abbott, but I'll get back to you. Where in the park...?

Mr. Jim Abbott: There's an area that was planted with spruce just after the turn of the century. The spruce is growing into the prairie area. The planting of the spruce was prior to Riding Mountain National Park being established. The park is attempting to return the area to the prairie.

As I say, because of time we won't get into a discussion about that. I have a contrary opinion to Parks Canada, but we won't touch that one.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I will look into it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I cannot possibly imagine taking trees like that and turning them into firewood; it's just impossible to imagine.

Secondly, on leases in perpetuity in that area, the people in that town site have a very justifiable concern. Many of them entered into leases in perpetuity.

I don't believe you're a lawyer; I'm certainly not. What Parks Canada is doing is turning around and saying that “perpetuity” means this or it means that. Therefore, they aren't going to be honouring the commitment of this lease in perpetuity.

The Chairman: Is this a question to the minister?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would like his comment on that.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'm going to provide an answer to that.

You're right, Mr. Abbott, I'm not a lawyer. I understand that issue has been in and out of the courts over time. I believe you're aware that we're working on the whole issue of governance of our lease structures, of our cost recovery in terms of the services being provided. I'm in the process of completing that review and I hope to have an opportunity to provide some direction on this matter to the various town sites.

• 1035

As you know, they're anxious to move forward and to have some sort of framework within which they're going to operate. The issue of leases is part of that review. I hope sometime early in the new year to be able to publicly put forward that framework.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You must see the connection in my mind between the Field trailer court situation and the lease-in-perpetuity situation in Riding Mountain National Park and other lease situations in Jasper with either individuals, cottage owners, or commercial concerns.

You can see my concern that it appears at first blush that Parks Canada is acting in a rather high-handed way. A lease in perpetuity is a lease in perpetuity, isn't it?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I've had the opportunity to go and meet directly with the folks from Riding Mountain. I've heard their perspective on this specifically. I was asked by them to talk to them, and I have. What I learned at those meetings I will be taking into account as I come forward with the policy on this. I appreciate and understand your concern, as I do theirs. And their perspectives certainly will be taken into account.

If there is in fact a difference of opinion in terms of the legality of it, I suspect the courts, which have already dealt with this issue, may be called in again. Parks Canada will always obey the law, whatever that law is seen to be by the courts.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, I should inform the members there was a 30-minute bell. It was a motion by the Reform Party to wish the best to the Queen for her 50th wedding anniversary. I suppose it must have been dealt with by unanimous consent.

The bells have stopped, Mr. Abbott, so unless you want to go and join with your colleagues to wish the Queen the best, we'll just carry on here. There's no further voting.

Carry on.

Mr. Jim Abbott: The other concern of the people of the town site in Riding Mountain, of course, is the redirection of the traffic. It was interesting as I drove through Dauphin, Manitoba. As you say, you've been there so you know what I'm speaking of; Parks Canada has made some very substantial changes to the road structure, to the overall traffic flow at the south end of the town site. As a consequence, the amount of traffic going into the town is substantially lower.

On top of that, there is a growing number of businesses immediately outside of the park so that people don't have to pay the entrance fee to come in to have lunch or whatever in the town site, where the parking lots are absolutely full. In past years they—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, they're doing a roll call.

The Chairman: The bells have stopped and I was told that there was no vote. They're voting now.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, they're doing a roll call.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, I wish her well.

I would like to go on record that I think the Queen's birthday or anniversary or whatever it is that we're doing is wonderful.

Mr. John Godfrey: It's her golden wedding anniversary.

Mr. Jim Abbott: What I am suggesting, Minister, is that whether we're talking about leases in perpetuity or about park entry fees for the people in Radium, there are frequently actions taken by Parks Canada all over Canada, where on one side of the coin you're saying that 25% of Parks Canada's budget comes from fees, leases, commercial activity.... All over Canada Parks Canada is taking actions—I can go down a list as long as my arm—that are directly counterproductive to the people who hold those leases, making it, in some cases, commercially impossible to even survive.

• 1140

Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I will comment on that. I've said directly to the folks at Riding Mountain that operating a business in a national park is not the same as operating a business outside of a national park. There are certain conditions and obligations that come with operating within a park.

It's fair to say I don't like the fact that you do this within a park and my competitor who operates outside of the park doesn't have that condition, but that's the reality within which that business operates. They operate within a national park and they're going to be governed by some of those circumstances.

If a national park decides for environmental or ecological reasons to reroute a highway, then the primary concern within the park is the ecological integrity of the park. The fact that it may keep people out of the downtown core of the town in Riding Mountain is a reality of doing business in a national park. Having said that, it doesn't excuse us from treating our leaseholders in the park in an equitable and consistent manner within the system as a whole. I think we have that obligation.

As you know, I come from the business community and we have to be cognizant of the economic conditions under which they operate. They have to achieve certain economic conditions if they're going to be there. I think we have to be sensitive to that. But on the other side of the coin, those operators have to be sensitive to the fact that indeed they are operating within a national park.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm glad that didn't come off as tough bananas to the people in the park. I wonder if there isn't a model at Gros Morne, recognizing that the park was only established in 1970 so they had a brand-new sheet to work with, unlike Banff, which was established in the 1800s.

Has Parks Canada considered the model that by happenstance occurred at Gros Morne? Although town sites are within the boundary of the park, the town site itself is not within the park. In other words, there could be to a truly independent town site situation or, even further, simplified lease arrangements such as they have at Gros Morne, where the western fjord operator just basically pays a straight percentage of gross. Has there been any consideration by Parks Canada to simplify the relationship with Jasper, Banff or other town sites that occur within parks?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: As I mentioned before, we are seized with the whole issue of our town sites, the governance of those town sites, the way we establish our leases in those town sites and the way we apply the fees for those town sites. I agree with you, Mr. Abbott, that we need to develop a model that works for the benefit of the park as a whole and for the individuals within our parks. We're in the process of doing that. I think it's needed and overdue. It has to be consistent throughout the system.

On the specific part about carving out, I think that's a good model for the future that we will want to look at it. I don't know whether we could go back to some of our situations that have existed for 50 or 60 years. I think that would be far more difficult to do and would certainly require parliamentary action because it would be changing the boundaries of parks. One of our safeguards is that we cannot decommission a park without the approval of Parliament.

Mr. Jim Abbott: You can decommission an airstrip but not a park.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Speaking of airstrips, as much for the education of the members of the committee as anything, would it be useful or possible to supply us with a kind of bibliography of the reports on the airstrip issue in Banff that includes both the safety issue and the ecological issue? Not that we need to be drowned in paper, but just so that we can have a bit of a sense of how seriously you take these issues, could you give us a kind of documentation of how many reports there have been on both the safety issue and the ecological issue? Then, if it's not too burdensome, could you extract passages that would help us better understand how these decisions are arrived at, both on the safety side and on the movement of animals side? Is that possible?

• 1045

Mr. Andy Mitchell: We can certainly table it. A lot of the science in the Banff-Bow Valley study then leads into the Banff management plan. The Transport Canada report is in fact public, and we will supply that to the committee. I'll ask my officials to reference—-

Mr. John Godfrey: Particularly, yes, that would be very helpful, so that we don't—-

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Been there, done that.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thanks.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, you had a question.

Mr. Mark Muise: I just have a couple of things. First, I'd like to echo what Mr. Godfrey said, because I think this is a very important issue.

I don't think any of us are against parks. I don't think that's the impression you have, but people's safety is very important in my mind as well. I'd like to see some reasons so that I can at least feel comfortable; if I don't, we can take it up at some future point.

I liked the tone of your answer to my last question, but I'm still curious to know something. Are you saying that since there's, let's say, 15 gaps left in the park system we could expect that they're not all going to be in place by the year 2000?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I think we have active negotiations for six additional ones that we're working on right now. We have studies going on in the other areas to identify potential or suitable sites—“suitable” would be probably a better word. As that science comes in and those studies are completed, we will reach out to the partners in the area.

Whether or not we can complete this all by the year 2000 wouldn't seem to be a Herculean task, but as I said, I'm not going to let us off the hook by saying that isn't our objective. We're going to work towards that. I'm going to get as much of it done as I possibly can. If there's some more to be done after that, it's not that I'm going to stop, I'm going to continue to work towards completion of the system.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, and then, Mr. Abbott.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are talking much about expanding the national parks and historical sites systems. Since you have been subjected to budget cuts for a few years, don't you think that you should consolidate and fully develop the existing sites before creating new ones? Where do you intend to find the funds needed to create other parks? Has that been already planned?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Well, first of all, we allocate a portion of our budget every year towards new parks and sites, but you address one of the challenges that I have as the Secretary of State for Parks. That's one of the reasons why I have worked hard towards the development of an agency for parks.

What we're trying to say, or what we're trying to do, is continue to carry out our mandate with reduced financial resources. We need to find ways to do that. One of the ways we're going to do that is by providing our employees, the men and women who work very hard on behalf of parks, with some tools that will allow them to do it, that will allow them to absorb the types of reductions that have occurred, but still continue to carry out our mandate.

There's no question that it's challenging, but I'm very fortunate to have working within the park system employees who are very dedicated to our parks and to our national historic sites. Every day, they are working to make this situation succeed, and with the development of the agency, with the commitment of the government towards that objective, with the dedication of our employees, I think we can in fact maintain what we have and can continue to work towards an expanded parks system.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, and then I would like to reserve two minutes for a couple of questions for the minister.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

Very quickly, I wonder if you could give me a commitment to get back to me with an answer on the following with respect to Mount Revelstoke National Park.

There was a $250,000 purchase of land immediately adjacent to Mount Revelstoke National Park's main entrance on the Trans-Canada Highway. I would like to know if there was an environmental assessment done, or an environmental review. I believe Parks Canada is supposed to do that. Also, I would like to have details as to why that was purchased. I've had a list of reasons as long as your arm, but I would like something official from you. I assume you could commit to that.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I will commit to that.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

• 1050

On Gwaii Haanas, there is a tremendous amount of discontent among the people in the Queen Charlotte Islands. This discontent is based on the promises they believe were made to them by Parks Canada with respect to tourism.

There has been a loss of logging income in the area as well as other activity that had previously been going on in the area. They were promised by Parks Canada, the minister and the province that there would be the opportunity to have a lot of ecological, commercial-activity tourism there, and it simply hasn't happened. They are really festering. What do you have to say to them?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I will look into that, Mr. Abbott. I have not heard that particular complaint, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I will look into that. From my understanding, there is nothing that would inhibit that type of activity from taking place. It won't take place by Parks Canada itself, there would have to be a private concern who sees that type of activity as commercially viable.

I don't know whether the difficulty that might exist is a difficulty of the park or the difficulty that the market conditions don't exist to allow that kind of investment to take place. But you're raising an important point and I will indeed look into it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Minister, could I ask you a couple of quick questions? First of all, will the new agency be subject to the Auditor General?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Yes it will. The Auditor General will still audit it.

The Chairman: Thank you. The second thing is that some people have mentioned to me—and I knew it was the case—that Gatineau Park is now part of the NCC jurisdiction. Is there any possibility that the Gatineau area could one day become a national park and be merged into the parks system under your agency to make it much more homogeneous and comprehensive in relation to the other parks?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: To answer that I would have to see whether or not it would meet the conditions to be a national park. Quickly, I don't know whether it would be large enough to be representative of the types of things we want to see in a national park, but it's certainly something that could be looked at.

The Chairman: It was just something somebody mentioned to me and I was curious to find out.

[Translation]

Are there any other questions? Yes, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Then, Mr. Minister, I understand. You told the committee that the agency would be created at the beginning of 1998 and that by the year 2000, you would have developed six new parks. How much does it cost to create a new park? I know nothing about it and I would like to be informed. Your budgets are decreasing each year. Do you think that within two years the agency which you intend to establish will be able to create six parks?

Then, I come back to the first question I asked you before: don't you think that the existing parks will suffer from a lack of funds, a lack of expansion and a lack of consolidation? Would you answer that question?

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: There are a number of points there. First of all, it is my hope to have the agency created in 1998, but that's subject to Parliament. Parliament has to pass the legislation, so I don't want to presume anything. It's up to all 301 of us to make that happen.

The establishment of the agency isn't creating something that wasn't there before, it's restructuring it in a way to make it operate more efficiently. Those parks are being worked on right now. Money has already been spent on those six particular parks on the research we do.

There isn't an exact science to setting up a park. We don't have a manual that gives us 42 steps and then, bingo, at step 43 we have a park. Each one is different. It's driven by the area where it's located. It's driven by the partners we need to deal with, be they provincial or territorial governments, first nation or aboriginal groups.

• 1055

So it's very difficult to say exactly what the cost would be of a particular park or what the timeframe would be. Even in a period of downsizing—and we're coming now to a point where hopefully our budgets will be stabilized—we always allocated a portion of our budget towards new parks and historic sites. We will continue to do that. Even through this down time we've put money in there. I don't want to pretend anything different; it's a challenge to do that, but it is something that I believe Canadians want to see us do. I have that responsibility to both maintain the existing parks we have and to move forward in terms of expanding our system. It's not easy, but we'll work on it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you have another question?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes. Can you assure me that the existing parks will not suffer from the expansion of new parks? It's about the existing parks that I am concerned.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell: We will ensure that it happens. There are a number of reporting processes by which the Canadian public and parliamentarians will be able to see whether we're accomplishing that. In the State of the Parks Report, you receive every two years an indication on how we're doing in that particular area. I suspect that when I come back here next year or the year after, if there's a particular park you're not happy with in terms of the State of the Parks Report, you'll let me know. But we will work towards that and we have the tools in place to monitor our success at doing it.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, it's just before 11 a.m. and I'll give you one last question if the minister will agree.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I just have one quick point. On the Trans-Canada Highway, when a person travels from the Okanagan or the Revelstoke side over Rogers Pass through into Yoho National Park, they don't really understand the signs. They will turn north and then go out to Red Deer through Nordegg. Then on their return trip they come back in and are accosted by the booths at Nordegg and are told they have to pay a fee to use the Columbia iceway road. Can you imagine how frustrating that is to members of the public?

Mr. Andy Mitchell: They inadvertently leave the park and then enter back in.

Mr. Jim Abbott: They don't inadvertently leave the park; they turn north at Lake Louise, travel up to Saskatchewan crossing, and then proceed east to Red Deer, having done so without paying the park fee for using the road between Lake Louise and Saskatchewan crossing.

Can you imagine the confusion, the frustration, and the anger that I hear about probably two or three times a week from people who say, what in the world is going on, why are we paying a fee going one way and not going the other and so on and so forth? I suggest, Minister, that the way in which the park fees in the four mountain parks and also Mount Revelstoke-Glacier are currently being collected is really totally unworkable.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: I'll look at that specific issue.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for your appearance here. You have been very forthright, very patient, and you have answered us very clearly. We really appreciate it.

Mr. Andy Mitchell: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.