HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 1221

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is meeting today to continue its study of Bill C-27.

[English]

An Act respecting the national parks of Canada.

We're very pleased today to have the following as participants in a round-table format: the Canadian Nature Federation, Mr. Kevin McNamee, director of the wildlands campaign; the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Mr. Harvey Locke, vice-president of conservation; and the Alberta Wilderness Association, Mr. Peter Poole, principal researcher.

Who wants to lead?

Mr. Harvey Locke (Vice-President, Conservation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society): We thought we might go in sequence, Mr. Chairman, if that's acceptable.

The Chair: That's fine, sure.

Mr. McNamee.

Mr. Kevin McNamee (Director, Wildlands Campaign, Canadian Nature Federation): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. It's an honour and a privilege to appear before you on Bill C-27, an act for Canada's national parks.

For the record, the Canadian Nature Federation supports the passage of Bill C-27. We have also offered seven amendments to this legislation.

I have left a copy of our brief with the clerk of the committee. I apologize that we did not get it in soon enough for it to get it translated and thus be distributed, but it is available at the front.

To give a very brief background, the Canadian Nature Federation is a national conservation organization with over 40,000 members and supporters across Canada. Part of our mission includes the expansion and protection of Canada's world-class national park system.

I'd also just like to draw it to the committee's attention that I testified before the legislative committee in 1988, when the National Parks Act was amended to include such things as ecological integrity and the state of the national parks report.

The first issue I'd like to address is the creation of new national parks. One of the more important aspects of this legislation is that it finally provides legal protection to six national parks and reserves that total 20% of our national park system. Currently these six parks are outside of the legal protection of the national parks.

Some of these parks are decades old—Pacific Rim, Gros Morne, Grasslands. Some of them are newer—Aulavik, Wapusk, and Sirmilik. We're very pleased that Parliament hopefully will finally give legal protection to these six outstanding national parks.

It's not only because these parks are new, or old, and protect important areas. Many of these national parks are the product of years of negotiations with provincial governments, first nations, local communities, and in some cases industry. Today you are finally bringing to a formal conclusion the long process of park establishment, and giving effect to those things that local people and first nations have negotiated and fought for over so many years.

In particular, the Canadian Nature Federation is pleased to see that Grasslands National Park is included in this bill. Formal protection of Grasslands National Park is important to the local community of Val Marie in Saskatchewan. In October 1994 I helped lead a Senate committee to the community of Val Marie. When we met with this community group, one of the first things they said to the Senate committee in 1994 is that this site should be officially proclaimed a national park under the act. They were seeking reassurance of the official commitment of Parliament to the park before any related economic development could go ahead.

• 1225

So here we were in the small community of Val Marie, several hundred people, and they wanted to talk about the formal protection of Grasslands under the National Parks Act. They've had to wait six years for this day, so I hope this committee will move ahead and formally proclaim this park.

Finally, I realize there are many issues you want to debate, but I hope all of you will share a sense of pride, because your deliberations will conclude with the formal proclamation of North America's first grasslands national park.

The Canadian Nature Federation supports the new streamlined process contained in Bill C-27 that facilitates the establishment of new national parks. I would draw your attention to the fact that in 1996 the Auditor General of Canada concluded that the process for adding new parks to the act was—and I quote—“cumbersome”. He recommended to Parliament that Parks Canada seek amendments to the act that would:

allow the federal government to add new national parks or enlarge existing ones through a streamlined legislative process without having to introduce legislation in Parliament.

I would be prepared to answer more detailed questions, but I'd just like to say this about the new process. I think it's important to recall the frustration that the local people of Val Marie, Saskatchewan, felt in not having Grasslands National Park formally proclaimed. Under this new process, they would not have to wait the many years they've had to.

The same thing with respect to Aulavik National Park in Inuvialuit territory. In 1991, the chair of the park establishment committee, a local person in Sachs Harbour, was constantly phoning the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Jean Charest, bugging him to get on with the conclusion of park negotiations. The agreement was finally signed in 1992, yet Sachs Harbour continues to wait eight years to have this park formally proclaimed under the National Parks Act. The new process would ensure that this would be done much quicker, and people wouldn't have to wait.

With respect to park establishment, we are suggesting an amendment with respect to the transformation of national park reserves to national parks. A national park reserve is an area set aside as a potential national park, pending the settlement of a native land claim. Under the process, aboriginal people can choose land within those parks for ownership.

To give you an example, when Auyuittuq National Park Reserve was first added to the National Parks Act in 1976, it protected 21,470 square kilometres. Because of their land claims settlement in 1993, they chose over 1,760 square kilometres for ownership, so the park is smaller by that amount.

To ensure that Parliament is fully informed on the impact of such decisions, we are recommending an amendment, new paragraph 6(2)(c), that calls for a report to be tabled in Parliament about the impact of such decisions. The specific amendment is in our brief.

My final point with respect to park establishment is that this committee and Parliament have put in place over the last several years a number of important mechanisms—the new Parks Canada Agency, Parks Canada legislation that talks about completing the parks system, the new parks and sites account to fund the establishment of new parks, this new process that's being considered—but the fact is, Parks Canada lacks the federal funding, the parliamentary funding required to sustain ongoing negotiations with first nations and local communities.

We've recommended that when you report back to the House, you may want to consider adding a report encouraging the federal government in its next federal budget to consider allocating new funds to the creation of new national parks.

I think my time is almost up, if I'm correct, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to just quickly touch on a couple of more points.

With regard to maintaining ecological integrity, we have joined with a number of groups—and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society will address this in more detail—in recommending an improvement to the ecological integrity statement. However, I'd like to point out that historically this is not a new concept.

In 1979, after intensive public discussion, Parks Canada added the concept of ecological integrity, being the first priority in park management, in its national parks policy. This was 1979.

• 1230

In 1988 a number of conservation groups brought to Parliament's attention the fact that this was not being acted on. Parliament in turn amended the National Parks Act to make ecological integrity the first priority. This has been subsequently reaffirmed a number of times.

I would just like to make the point that this is not a new concept. The panel on ecological integrity has suggested some new wording, and we support that.

In terms of designating wilderness areas, in 1988 I sat before this committee urging that the National Parks Act include this provision to create wilderness areas, and Parliament did so. Unfortunately, in the 12 years since Parliament put this provision into the act, not one wilderness area has been established in any national park across Canada. That's 12 years of no action.

So we have suggested some specific wording in here that in essence puts into place a trigger to create wilderness areas in national parks.

Finally, we have also suggested a provision that also acts on recommendations from the ecological integrity report and from the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

This amendment, new subclause 8(3), we think is important to be included in this bill.

We believe the amended act should state:

The Minister and superintendents shall actively seek to maintain and restore the ecological integrity of the parks by working in cooperation with other authorities, private organizations, individuals and landowners, and by participating in research, education, land use planning, environmental assessments and other decision-making processes, the outcomes of which are reasonably expected to affect the ecological integrity of the park.

We're suggesting this because we published in December the top-10 list of national parks endangered. What's very clear when you look at our national parks is that many of them are under threat because the activities outside of the parks are not being coordinated. In essence, you have two solitudes, the national parks and the adjacent landowners, and we think it imperative that Parliament signal that it expects Parks Canada not to make decisions about land use activities outside but to be a good citizen and to participate in the legitimate processes that are in play outside the parks. For us this is a very important point.

I'll conclude by saying those are the highlights of our brief, the things that we believe are priorities. I wish you luck in your deliberations. If we can answer any questions now or in writing, we would be prepared to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Locke.

Mr. Harvey Locke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

We are very pleased to appear before you. I will be speaking in English.

[English]

Thank you very much for having us.

I represent the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, an organization that was started about 37 years ago in response to a call from the then Minister of Parks that there needed to be a group of citizens in Canada who were devoted to national parks and would speak up for their management. There was a lot of personal interest advocated in relation to national parks but not much national interest advocated from citizens in relation to parks.

So that's who we are. We have 16,000 members across the country now.

We've prepared a brief, which I hope everyone has.

The Chair: It has been distributed.

Mr. Harvey Locke: Has it? Good. I'm going to refer to a couple of specific things in it, and it would be very helpful if people had it in front of them.

The first and foremost point we would like to address is subclause 8(2) of the proposed bill. This is the ecological integrity clause.

In the brief we've distributed, on page 3 at the bottom, under the heading “Recommended Amendments”, we address the clause that matters more than probably any other in the bill. Kevin gave a bit of the history of it, but I would like to quote from a little document, The History and Meaning of the National Parks of Canada, written by J.B. Harkin, the man who created our park service in 1907. He created the world's first park service when he created ours.

• 1235

There is an immortal quote from him that applies to what we're dealing with:

“Use without abuse”—How can it be attained? That is the problem which must confront everyone who is responsible for the protection and development of our national parks.

So the dilemma is there. What we've learned over time is that the legislative foundation for that needs to reflect what we've learned. What we've learned is that right now our national parks are not succeeding in their mandate of being preserved unimpaired for future generations.

We had a very expert panel tour the country and publish this document, Unimpaired for Future Generations? Their conclusion was that we are failing. We are not maintaining our parks unimpaired for future generations.

We need Parliament to ensure that we stop failing. We need to strengthen the legal foundation of what we're doing with our national parks.

When you look at subclause 8(2) as proposed in the bill, you'll see that it does refer to ecological integrity as a paramount concern. That's good. That's very positive. As Kevin said, it came in during 1988. But we think it's not quite good enough.

It says now:

Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority of the Minister in the consideration of park zoning and visitor use.

We propose something that talks not only of maintenance but also of restoration of ecological integrity, because we know it's been lost, and we need to get it back. It's been lost since some of these parks were established. For instance, Fundy Park has lost three species of animals since it was established. We need to reverse that trend. We need Parliament to signal that we're not only maintaining but we're going to restore; we're going to get better instead of worse.

We also suggest the protection of natural resources and natural processes, because processes are part of nature. It's not just forest; it's also the processes of forest, whether it be fire or flooding or whatever. Those are part of nature.

We also would like to ask that the clause contain—and I've underlined the words we're seeking to add to the clause—the words “all actions and decision-making”. It doesn't say that now.

Curiously, subclause 8(1) says:

The Minister is responsible for the administration, management and control of parks, including the administration of public lands in parks.

We'd like to see the ecological integrity clause say that it's:

the first priority of the Minister in all actions and decision-making relating to the administration, management and control of parks including public lands in parks.

In other words, just track subclause 8(1) into (2). Just make the drafting consistent. Then it will be clear that there's not some kind of category to which this doesn't apply. It's pretty clearly the intention of the government, and from everything we've heard, that it should apply at all times. The language isn't as artful as it could be to send the signal directly that it always applies.

If you had a lawsuit over this, chances are that under subclause 8(2) it would say that ecological integrity means it applies to everything, but why have a lawsuit? When you're legislating, legislate for clarity and achieve the stated objective in clear language.

What we've presented here for subclause 8(2) achieves the objectives. It's consistent with the suggestion made by the panel on ecological integrity. A number of environmental lawyers across the country have commented on the entry in our brief, and we think this is an improvement that would make it clear and that would be positive. So if there's only one thing you take away from my presentation today, please take that.

There are a couple of other things, but I'll be brief; we have a short time for our submission.

The caps on development, which, again, are a centrepiece of this bill, are found in clause 33. Perhaps I could ask you to turn to page 4 of our brief.

Everybody in this room would know about the controversy we've had about commercial development in our parks. This is an effort to end the controversy and provide communities with certainty and the Canadian public with certainty.

• 1240

The clause does not at present cover all the bases. It talks about commercial development in park communities. It does not talk about another kind of commercial development that exists in national parks, particularly in the Rocky Mountains, called “outlying commercial accommodations”. There are dozens of them. These are little bungalow camps or resorts that are outside of the communities and parks.

There has been a process set up to address outlying commercial accommodations. What we'd like to see is that the outlying commercial accommodations have a legislated cap, just like the community commercial development has a legislated cap. We've proposed another section that just exactly tracks, with the same kind of process you have proposed for communities, for outlying commercial accommodations. That's just so that we don't miss anything, so that we get this done once, right.

There are other points in our brief. I won't touch on all of them. I know you can read them.

We do think, on the matter of ski hills, which has been an issue over which much debate has occurred, that legislating ski hills to be ski hills—as opposed to ski hills and something else—is necessary. We are not arguing that ski hills should be removed. We're just saying ski hills are ski hills. They are not places that should start turning into destination summer resorts when they weren't conceived that way, they weren't established that way, and it's ecologically destructive for them to become that way.

In the case of Banff and Jasper parks, where the ski hills are, there are already facilities there that serve the summer visitor who wants to ride a lift up the mountain to a great view. One, in Banff, is the Sulphur Mountain Gondola, and the other, in Jasper, is the Jasper Sky Tram. Neither of those are affected by what we propose. We propose ski hills be ski hills. We need that, and we urge you to do that, because what's happened, alas, is that there's been an effort, at least in a couple of places, to turn the ski hills into something else. The ecological consequences are very negative.

Lake Louise ski hill, for example, is a very important grizzly bear habitat. We know that the Banff National Park grizzly bear population is very seriously stressed. The grizzly bear biologists say you should not use this place in the summer. The ski hill is there, and we accept that, but let us not compound the problem.

At Mount Norquay, an explicit deal was made 10 years ago to remove summer use in return for an expansion of the ski hill. I remember that personally. I was involved in those discussions. Now the operator wants to forget that ever happened. It's a new purchaser who says they want summer use again.

That is wholly unacceptable, wholly unacceptable. We need to have legislation that says ski hills are ski hills, thank you very much.

The only wrinkle in this is at Sunshine Village, where there is a bus road and a hotel. The Sunshine area was a traditional hiking area even before the large development of ski facilities. It can be managed in a way that's similar to how Lake O'Hara summer use is managed, with a controlled access road and the hotel at the end of the road.

So we accept that, because there's a traditional aspect of use there that's not a function of a ski hill. It's a function of it being a high-quality experience for park visitors. We've proposed language that would address that subtlety, but we ask very strongly that you do this legislation.

In relation to Sunshine, in 1988 Sunshine was the only ski area whose boundary was not settled by law. It was to be done shortly thereafter. Sunshine had a big ski expansion proposal, which is why this committee recommended it be deferred. Thirteen years later, here we are. There's no expansion proposal on the table. Let us finally legislate that boundary so that it cannot grow further. All the other ski hills have legislated boundaries.

That's all I have time to do. There are other points in the brief that we hope you'll look at, but those are the highlights.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr. Locke.

Mr. Poole, the floor is yours.

Mr. Peter Poole (Principal Researcher, Alberta Wilderness Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Peter Poole. I reside in Banff, Alberta. I'm representing today the Alberta Wilderness Association.

• 1245

I brought a brief with me, which I will leave with the clerk. I apologize very much that I did not have sufficient notice to be able to arrange for its translation and full distribution today.

I am very honoured to be here. I'd like to give you a little flavour today of what it's like to be in a park. I'd also like to speak about balance.

I'd like to speak about balance because my feet are planted quite firmly in two different boots. One boot works very hard on conservation issues, but I am also the general manager for a sizable property or leasehold owner in the downtown core of Banff. Thus, I think I can speak about some of the issues of limits with an understanding of how they work in practice.

My brief, which will available through the clerk, has an appendix that goes clause-by-clause through the bill, with recommendations for changes, but I would like to extract just six highlights and present those to you in very brief form.

First is the fundamental principle that I see enshrined in this bill, and that is that the minister needs more authority to protect parks and expand park areas, but this should be restrained by Parliament if such protection were ever to be relaxed. The principle is like a ratchet. This bill will make it easier to enhance protection than to degrade parks. Like a ratchet, this bill will make it easier for the minister to expand parks than to shrink them. We applaud this and think it fully consistent with history, the National Parks Act over time, and the changes that have been made to it.

Allow me to mention a little bit of some of those changes. I'll skip through the bulk of what I've written and just say that over the past century we have transformed the parks from within. Once we hunted and mined. Once we logged forests, suppressed fires, built dams, highways, railways, grand hotels and not-so-grand hotels, and as our population expanded we crowded the ski areas, golf courses, and shopping arcades in our parks. We've even observed in the last few years that the chemical makeup of the very highest glaciers and highest lakes in the park have been transformed. Thus, we can no longer protect our parks merely by trying to protect them from within. We must look beyond the perimeter of our parks.

Over the past three decades, Canadians have noticed that we've actually surrounded the parks. No longer are they oases with little spots of civilization in a vast sea of wilderness. Nowadays they are little islands of biodiversity in a vast sea of civilization.

Perhaps now more than ever national parks have become symbols of humanity's deep attachment to the other, to a recognition and celebration of our interdependence with the biodiversity of the entire planet.

As a resident in a national park, what is that? What's it like? Well, it's a supreme privilege. As a resident of a national park, a conservationist and a businessman, there is an important social contract we accept when we choose to live and run, to take the risks of running, a business in a park—namely, it's not a right to live and run a business in a park, but in exchange for this privilege we accept a corresponding duty to live up to the majesty of our surroundings.

Thus, in the balance between the national interest or the local interest, we choose to live in the park accepting that the national interest has higher priority.

Third, let me move to the issue of limits. Despite all the public attention on and praise by conservationists of this concept of limits, let's not be lulled for a moment into complacency, because in practice, as we have seen, living in the parks, each of the announced park caps in park communities allows for commercial and residential growth of 10% to 30% beyond what they are now.

• 1250

Now, how did this happen? When we go outside the park and tell somebody, “You know, the limits aren't actually in place now”, they'll say, “What do you mean? We've seen all the press about it. Aren't the limits there?” We have to tell them no.

Here's what happened. The parks executives, when they proposed public open houses to extract local people's comments about proposed limits, refused to entertain and put on their formal public comment sheets a cap at now—that is, zero expansion—and clearly refused to discuss any reduction in the size of park communities, only allowing for scenarios that anticipated growth. That's not been very clear to most people.

So we have three specific recommendations concerning limits: that the commercial space be extended to include public service and institutional space, which I clarified more; that this ratchet effect that's in the law be applied to certain commercial areas and recreational areas where those uses are no longer appropriate, or, for reasons pertaining to the intent of the act, it might be necessary to restrict the commercial areas; and that caps on human use be introduced in the legislation more explicitly so that we can move to provide the Parks Canada managers with the authority they need if that should happen to be the case in the future as human use increases so that in the future this legislation can continue to grow and work.

There are advantages and disadvantages of limits. I won't go through the full argument, but I've discussed both advantages and disadvantages in our brief.

The key disadvantage is that by restricting supply in a private enterprise system, the prices go up, and thus we exclude access in a democratic way to the broad bulk of Canadians. That same concern was raised on March 3, 1887, in Hansard by the parliamentary leaders at that time when they debated the formation of Banff National Park.

The Canadian model of park management, in comparison with the models in the U.S.A. and in Australia and even in Russia, is more oriented and more lenient towards commerce. I would like to see, and our association would like to see, that this legislation enable park managers and enable the minister to consider the other models—for example, quotas, rationing, and so forth—that exist elsewhere.

That's within our brief, but I would say that should be clarified under clause 16, dealing with regulations.

There's one extra aspect of limits in here that's quite important and particularly of concern to me in my capacity of trying to lead a commercial landlord to being a cutting-edge environmental leader in the park. That is under subparagraph 33(2)(d)(i), where the principle of no net negative environmental impact is introduced.

That principle is orphaned there in clause 33, and should be echoed and clarified under clause 16 so that the park managers, when they go to institute this principle, can have full authority to implement it and see that it is enforced.

Why is that important to me in my capacity as the general manager of a commercial landlord? Because we're out there trying to attract the best environmental architect to do the best thing possible in Canada's premier national park, and what do we see? Because of a lack of clear regulation, there are free riders who are out there trying to skirt the law or the intent of the law. We would like to see firm, clear limits so that we have an even race. We can live with the competition, but we want clear limits and clear regulations.

In summary, if we nail everything down by specifying capacities in communities and recreation areas and outlying commercial accommodations, we will then have made a great step in national park management. We will be able to step past the spectre of endless battles and walk forward, shoulder to shoulder, improving park resources and improving the quality of experience for park visitors.

• 1255

I will hold off presenting any more highlights and just conclude by saying that as a resident enjoying the privilege of living in a national park, please, do not defer to local interests, and do not defer to private interests, but reinforce this balance, this wonderful historical balance, in our legislation in Canada, that social contract that favours the national interest.

The panel on ecological integrity did speak on balance. It said, “Canadians have asked too much of their national parks and given back too little.”

Similarly, a Cree elder, Wes Fineday, defined the concept of balance three years ago when he spoke in Banff:

If there is to be balance, there must be give and take. For decades and decades we have been taking, taking, taking. Now it is time to give back.

Where I live, in Banff Park, the mountain parks aren't getting any bigger, and as far as we all know, the planet isn't either. I thank you very much for working to strengthen our national parks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Poole.

Mr. Locke.

Mr. Harvey Locke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I just make one minor amendment to the brief, for the record?

The Chair: Yes, of course.

Mr. Harvey Locke: On page 2 the brief describes me as an environmental lawyer. I am a former environmental lawyer. I am no longer an active member of the Law Society. These things matter to law societies, so I should be clear on that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First let me welcome you to the committee. It's nice to hear that we all believe there should be a sense of balance. We all know that people have a place in the parks as well as animals.

I'd like to ask each one of you a question, starting with Mr. McNamee, if I may.

You spoke about activities outside the park affecting the integrity of the environment inside the park, such as landowners living adjacent to the park and agricultural activities that take place. To ensure that all stakeholders work together and work cooperatively, do you think it would be a good idea to mandate some form of committee, such as a liaison committee, between people who live outside the park or certainly adjacent to the park and the stakeholders inside the park?

I'll give you an example. Riding Mountain National Park has a Riding Mountain National Park liaison committee, where the municipalities actually have an organization that meets regularly to talk about the issues inside the park and adjacent to the park.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Yes, the Canadian Nature Federation fully supports that idea, that there be these stakeholder organizations or things put into place. I guess it depends where the park is, what the issues are, and what's the makeup of the park. In some cases it's simply provincial land, and in the case of Riding Mountain, for instance, you have different levels of landowners.

I think it's very important that those committees be put in place as long as there's some very clear direction as to what is the purpose of those committees, what is the intent. They have to make sure that the ecological integrity of the park is addressed as well as issues related to visitor use, but they have to be committees that strive to solve problems, not committees that just meet to meet, or not committees that just meet to say, well, we have a stakeholders group. And sometimes that does happen.

Price Albert, for instance, has had a steering committee in place that I thought did an excellent job in driving towards a revised park management plan in that it picked five specific issues. I think the kind of amendment, though, that we were seeking was one that would say to Parks Canada and to the staff and to the minister that Parliament believes that Parks Canada employees should get involved in not just these multi-stakeholder groups but also in some of the processes—for example, in Manitoba—and some of the environmental assessments and other things that happen outside the park, that determine the future of those lands outside parks like Riding Mountain.

• 1300

There was an environmental assessment with respect to a forest management plan that Parks Canada chose not to get involved in. You still have these two solitudes of Riding Mountain National Park and the lands outside the park.

So we think it has to go further than these multi-stakeholder committees.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey Locke: May I respond to that?

Mr. Inky Mark: Actually, I wanted to ask you about ski hills.

Mr. Harvey Locke: Oh, sure, that's fine.

Mr. Inky Mark: This past year there's been considerable media attention given to the ski hill lift at Lake Louise. As well, you indicated in your brief that Sunshine runs a summer resort. I don't know whether they still use the lift during the summer.

I need to ask you, how does gondolas at Lake Louise going up and down the hill affect the ecology of the hill?

Mr. Harvey Locke: Sure. Maybe I can give a brief bit of background.

My mother was the first person known to be born at Lake Louise, and my family has a long, long connection with that park. The story of the use of summer lifts in the park is an interesting one.

Sunshine does not use lifts in the summer now, and hasn't for a number of years. There is a restricted access bus that takes people up. That's okay with us.

Lake Louise has not used a gondola for years. It had a gondola service for more or less 25 years. They do not use a gondola now, they use a chairlift, and there's a big difference. The old gondola used to depart from the edge of the highway. It was an enclosed cabin and it went up to one place on the hill. It had small numbers of use and it was from a time when we understood ecology differently than we do today.

A few years ago they installed high-speed quad chairlifts, departing from a parking lot that's a mile-and-a-half distance up the mountain from the highway. So the use is no longer concentrated on the edge of the highway; it's now up the hill in this big area of parking lots.

What happens is that you come out of the parking lot, you go past the front of the day lodge, you walk around this meadow at the bottom, and then you ride an open, exposed chairlift over the forest.

We know from good data that grizzly bear usage of that area is very high. You have all these people being brought into and using an area where they weren't before. The greatest irony in the press on this issue is that no one has bothered to talk about whether there's even a gondola running. There isn't one. There hasn't been for years.

So the problem—and you can talk to some very pre-eminent grizzly bear biologists about this—is that grizzly bears and lots of people don't mix successfully; grizzly bears are alienated from their habitat, which means they don't use it, or else they become nocturnal in their behaviour. Ultimately there's a conflict, and when we have a conflict between bears and people, usually the bear ends up getting killed.

I can tell you a story that shook me. Dr. Stephen Herrero, who's been studying grizzly bears in Banff National Park for about 30 years, received the J.B. Harkin medal for conservation here in Ottawa in the fall. In his speech he said that in all the time he's been studying grizzly bears in Banff National Park, only one—only one—has died of natural causes. The rest were shot because they were a nuisance to people, or were relocated or run over.

Now, that is an unacceptable experience for our national park. Lake Louise is prime, prime grizzly bear habitat.

I was at a gathering of many of the pre-eminent grizzly bear biologists in North America in January. It was hosted by the IUCN to focus on grizzly bear survival in the central Rockies ecosystem.

They just published their report, and their strong recommendation is that we have to reduce the use of grizzly bear habitat or the grizzly bears are going to disappear from the system. It's a very good report I'd urge you to see.

A classic example of that is the Lake Louise ski hill, where we are putting pressure on this dense population of grizzly bears. We're going to start to lose them. Their recommendation is, don't have summer use, and that's why.

The Chair: Thank you.

I will come back to you.

Mr. Laliberte.

• 1305

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know you gave us the condensed version of your presentation, but maybe I can ask about the basic and essential services. If you don't have it now, maybe a written definition would be required here.

This came to light in a national park in our area, dealing with the nearest campground. Some of the issues that came up concern the definition of service itself—water and sewer, power, interpretive staff, highways, biosciences. Then you add on “essential”.

What is the perspective, I guess relating to this bill, on what is required? Is this definition required in clauses 16 and 33, or the clause you focused on here?

If you couldn't respond orally, maybe a written definition or a written response could be forwarded at a later time.

Mr. Harvey Locke: I could take a stab first at responding orally...or go ahead, Peter.

Mr. Peter Poole: In response to that, I'll mention one thing, and then, if I could, I'd like our association to provide the chair with a written response further, because I don't have the document with me that I will be referring to. I'm referring to it from memory.

There is a management policy concerning commercial development in the park in Banff—and I'm not sure we have in our audience today a person who would probably remember it from his photographic memory, Charlie Zinkin—that specifies what is basic and what is essential.

The irony of it—and I think you pointed to a really good thing—is that without proper legislation of this existing policy that is quite clear and quite usable in its clarity, and could well be referred to in this new bill, without that tight correspondence between an existing policy and this bill, we end up with anomalous policy decisions where, for example, in the community of Lake Louise, neither a church nor a school could be considered basic or essential, and yet Parks Canada purportedly approved a seven-storey convention centre on the shores of Lake Louise, and considers that to be basic and essential.

So we have much difficulty not with the intent of the policy but with its actual implementation. Therefore, we would encourage Parliament to be quite clear to provide systems of accountability so that existing policies, once legislated, can be properly implemented and enforced.

We'll provide the chair with a written response.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey Locke: I actually have a working definition of that. I brought it with me because I thought it might be relevant.

The Chair: All right, go.

Mr. Harvey Locke: Basic and essential services means services necessary to support quality national park experiences for visitors, but should not include commercial development. By “commercial development” I mean fixed-roof accommodations, playing fields, golf courses, ski runs, tea houses, shopping facilities, private museums, private campgrounds, and convention centres. It doesn't mean things like interpretive facilities or campgrounds run by the park or hiking trails.

Kevin tells me that the Canadian Nature Federation would support that view as well.

The problem isn't the campgrounds per se, or places where people go and have access to and enjoy nature, assuming they're properly located and they don't destroy some high value. The problem is, and it's a particularly acute problem in the west, that absent that kind of direction, we've had remarkable things happen in national parks. We have had Harley-Davidson T-shirt shops open, for example, specializing in Harley-Davidson T-shirts. We had a specialty shop in Hollywood posters. A wax museum was open. Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum was there for a while. So without this kind of guidance....

You also get this phenomenon, which has developed in Banff, of a shopping destination. You have this strange perversion of purpose where you create a shopping destination as opposed to a place that serves visitors. In effect, what happens is that you alienate the people who come for nature.

• 1310

I holiday in national parks. It's my idea of a good time. I have for years, and I've travelled to many, many parks across this continent. There's a national park experience or a feel that you get going into a lot of parks that's really very special. They're of very high value to me. When you go there you know you're someplace special. You know the things that are built have been built thoughtfully. You know they're there to serve so that you have a quality experience, you understand what you're doing better, and you feel good about it.

Alas, when you go to some of our parks, you say, okay, how on earth did this happen? What possible policy decision could have led to this happening in this kind of a setting?

That's why we need to get some control over it by using the words “basic and essential”. That doesn't mean “nothing”; it just means to have services appropriate to a park experience, which is not that hard to define.

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I have a couple of questions, and I'm going to go to Harvey first.

Going back to defining the basic and the essential, you've read it into the record, but I'm just wondering if you might copy that for the clerk and circulate it to us as well. I was looking for a definition.

My concern over it is how we tighten it in such a fashion to ensure.... For example, a wax museum is not necessarily part of the park...yet we're not restricting it in such a fashion as to encourage use, which is part of the mandate of the park and the legislation. My concern is that although we respect the fact that there are many commonalities throughout parks in Canada, there's also uniqueness within parks in Canada. So I'm having difficulty with basic and essential.

For instance, you talked about fixed roofs. If I wanted to take my family to a federal park and go kayaking or mountain biking, and I had to drive there and rent the mountain bikes, there may not be a facility under your definition, if I'm understanding it correctly, to rent the mountain bikes, which, in fairness, does not necessarily impair the ecological integrity of the park.

I'd like to take a second or two, then, and hit on the basic and essentials in light of the uniqueness of all the different parks.

I also wanted to touch on population densities. You talked about a standard formula for population densities. Again, when we're dealing with parks having different needs, being somewhat unique, having a standard formula for population density could encourage more growth than is necessary in some regions and could restrict growth in certain areas where there is no harm from any ecological integrity standpoint.

At the end of the day, when the minister is charged with the responsibility, under subclause 8(2), the primary focus being maintaining the ecological integrity, the minister of the day is the final decision-maker as to what the densities are going to be—what the heights are going to be and what kinds of structures are going to be located. So it's able to be dealt with in a very unique fashion.

The last one I wanted to address to Peter.

I was trying to write the statement down as you were speaking, Peter—and I look forward to getting your brief in writing—that we must enhance powers to ensure the minister has the necessary authority to maintain the ecological integrity, with a safety mechanism for Parliament to ensure the minister is following up on that responsibility.

If that's what I understood, I would suggest that in subclauses 11(1) and (2) that insurance is already in there insofar as Parliament has to revisit the minister's plan every five years and every two years, in (2), with regard to new parks. So there's a mechanism in place there, possibly, for Parliament. I'd like you to expand on that.

I'll get my four questions in and then let them respond.

Kevin, you touched on the consultative process and the support for the legislation in general, and on wanting to see some more “meat”, if I may, or some actions rather than words. I'm just wondering if you could comment on this.

• 1315

Do you believe the consultative process has been satisfactory in terms of both openness and transparency and allowing those who are impacted or who have an opinion the opportunity to voice their opinions and suggestions, their ideas?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Is that with respect to new parks?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That's with respect to the process to date. You can't speak on new parks because we haven't created any.

Whoever wants to go first.

Mr. Harvey Locke: Can I jump in, just to finish that?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Sure.

Mr. Harvey Locke: I think it's useful to set a context for parks and the family visit experience. I too take my kids to parks.

Across Canada there is a variety of parks. Only a few have real development problems. The real development problems are the ones that have communities in them and these outlying commercial accommodations.

I'll speak directly to your question about fixed-roof tying into defining caps, and whether the ecological integrity clause does it. We have not succeeded in preventing commercial development from deeply compromising the ecological integrity, notwithstanding having had an ecological integrity clause in the act since 1988.

The Banff-Bow Valley study explored the state of the Banff-Bow Valley, where in fact the greatest majority of all commercial development in all our park system is located. The valley is in deep trouble ecologically because we overdid it. That's why we need to legislate an end to it. It hasn't worked.

You know, if this world was a perfect world, we wouldn't be sitting here doing this today, because presumably the ecological integrity clause would have protected us. But it didn't, and that's why we need to put rules in to say this is over, we're done.

In terms of using parks, providing fixed-roof accommodation or rentals of mountain bikes.... In some cases, I would say, mountain bikes actually are an ecological problem. We don't need to spend a lot of time on that, though; in some places they're not.

There are always gateway communities that can provide those services, which is the typical model in the United States. They have parks that get an awful lot of usage, and they provide services to people. People enjoy their parks, but they just don't expect that to happen inside the park.

For example, Canmore, Alberta, which is right on the boundary of Banff Park, serves as a gateway community. That enhances the regional economy and it also takes the pressure off the inside of the park.

So it's not that we can't have that, it's just where.

The Chair: Mr. McNamee, do you want to tackle that last question?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Yes.

If I understand the question, we're talking about the consultative process for the parks that are just being created.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That's correct.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I would have to say that I've been a very keen observer of and participant in the new park establishment process since 1983. In one way or another, I've been involved, to a certain extent, in the creation of almost a dozen national parks to varying degrees.

It used to be, in the late 1960s and 1970s, that local people were totally ignored in the park establishment process. To create Forillon National Park, to create Kouchibouguac National Park, people were expropriated from their land.

It's 180 degrees in the other direction now. Parks Canada, the federal government, does not make a move to create a new national park unless there is the support of the affected local communities and the support of first nations.

It used to be that when a national park agreement was signed, it was signed by the minister of the provincial government and the minister of the federal government in charge of those portfolios.

Today, for example, with Wapusk National Park, created in Churchill, the signatories include the two affected first nation communities plus the mayor of Churchill. With Sirmilik National Park, which was created last August, the process to create that has been established within the Nunavut final land claim agreement.

If anything, then, park establishment processes for about the last two decades have been largely driven by the concerns of local people. The agreement to create the Bruce Peninsula National Park in Ontario addresses 59 issues that were raised and defined by the local communities.

So if you go through all the national park agreements right now, that's the process that drives them.

• 1320

I'm sorry if that's a little bit of a long-winded answer, but I think the short answer is that aside from Tuktut Nogait, a national park that this committee debated—and I was involved in that debate—most, by the time they get to the formal legal establishment stage, don't have issues to be dealt with. And I say that as someone who has been involved in this process for 17 years.

The Chair: Mr. Poole.

Mr. Peter Poole: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to Mr. Bonwick's question about the authority given to the minister and the oversight through the planning and reporting functions that Parliament might retain, I have two short comments and will leave the rest to the written response.

One, I hear that you're interested in flexibility in the legislation to allow for differences across the parks. Might I suggest that where there are planning mechanisms and development review mechanisms those processes be modelled after conservation planning commissions rather than development approval commissions? That way the mandate generally says, “No, unless...”, rather than the way we have it now, which is, “Yes, you can proceed, but....” That provides more clarity to a business operator.

I'll give you one short example of where there are problems now. We've observed over the past decade, in Banff and its neighbouring parks, Parks Canada authorities using the “Yes, but” approval mechanism. The “but” is a list of conditions so onerous on the developer that the developer tries, spends money, doesn't get a permit in the end, is frustrated, and scapegoats not Parks Canada but the third-party interveners for the failure to get a permit.

It would be much clearer and cause less rancour and less expense overall if we had conservation planning mandates that first said, okay, these are the ways you can proceed; otherwise, no go. That still allows for flexibility and allows for variations across the parks.

Secondly, about planning and reporting, I might say that planning and especially the reporting functions every two years should explicitly require consideration of land use changes on adjacent lands to the parks and efforts to plan and implement restoration of impaired ecosystems. By including that language, we'll then see that this type of reporting happens and Parliament will be able to provide the oversight that the act intends.

The Chair: Are there any more questions from members?

Mr. Mark.

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

Actually, I was going to say it's good to see Mr. Poole again. We spoke about parks going back two summers.

One of the big problems tends to be the right balance between commercial and environmental requirements of parks. Mr. Locke talked about gateway communities. In fact, I had asked the chairman of the panel on ecological integrity about that very same thing. I asked if it wouldn't be easier in the case of Banff, because of all the problems associated with commercial development, just to redraw the boundaries around Banff. Then you would have a gateway community and the parks would be parks.

Would you like to respond?

Mr. Harvey Locke: The problem with doing that is that the area Banff is in is the most ecologically valuable part of Banff National Park.

As an analogy or perhaps as an example, the lower valley bottoms where we tend to cluster our commercial development in national parks in the mountains is called the montane eco-region. That's the area that's most productive for wildlife. It greens up first in the spring. The songbirds come and the grizzly bears emerge from hibernation. It's the place where ungulates, elk and deer, overwinter. It's a place where the wolves and cougar who prey on them winter.

If we take that out of the park just because we've let development get out of control in it, you're ripping the heart out of the ecosystem.

In fact, in the case of the Bow Valley, the people of Canmore just recently supported an initiative to protect the entire area around their town in a park because of the high ecological value of the part of the valley they're in. All the way from the Stoney Indian Reserve right through the Banff park boundary is now called the Bow Valley Wildland Park. They wanted to protect it. They have a limit-to-growth policy in the town, in their private community. They've put wildlife corridors across their village because they know the ecological values are so high.

• 1325

Carving the Bow Valley out would only degrade the ecosystem further, and would be a terrible failure, really, on our part as stewards of national parks.

The Chair: If I may, Mr. Poole and Mr. McNamee, we have two other questioners. We have to eventually wind up to go to Question Period and so forth, and we have another session this afternoon. If you could be brief, I'll then recognize the two other questioners.

Mr. Peter Poole: Mr. Chair, thank you.

Let me just say that, on the surface, I think a few people in Banff might support a concept like that, but overwhelmingly people would oppose it for the following simple reason, which I'll give as a story.

Last week my neighbour, who has a bird feeder outside the back of her yard, had a bear climb over into her yard. She called the park warden.

When the animals are coming through the town, as they do in the spring particularly, we'll need the wardens in there. There's no way we can operate it unless it's within a park. I think it sounds nice on the surface, but it wouldn't work in practice. As well, from looking at other recreation areas where you might want to do that....

For example, in ski areas, we surveyed skiers in our research office in Banff and asked them what sort of environmental protection they want, what sort of environmental management. Even those snowboard dudes who are up there 50 days a year and who don't think the ski area is actually in a national park are saying more strongly than anybody else, yes, of course; you have to have the top environmental standards in the world.

They just love the area. They want the environmental standards. The visitor wants it. We should not question having strong standards at all.

The Chair: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our guests. I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Poole, you touched on something that kind of piqued a question I've asked in the past. You said something about land use, changes to lands adjacent to the parks.

I guess I understand why you say that, but where does it stop? Let's say this piece of paper is a park, and you say you restrict activity in this area. But then if you say, well, adjacent lands, restrict use, etc., in 15 or 20 years will we restrict use on the adjacent area to the adjacent area to the adjacent area? Where does it end?

Mr. Peter Poole: Well, it doesn't end in Ottawa, but in some ways it starts here. There are wonderful buffer zone plans that exist out there in park planning literature that show a core area can be protected, the surrounding areas can have moderate use, and one can change those uses over time so that the core area is still protected. That's the general thrust.

But from a decision-making standpoint, why is this reporting about adjacent lands important? Because without the information being generated, we don't know. Without the knowledge, we then don't have an opportunity to have....and we, as the Canadian government, Parliament, doesn't have the resources at its disposal to then enter into negotiations with the people on the perimeter of the park, be they communities or provinces or whomever.

So generating the information in a reporting function serves public policy for all interested parties.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: If I can add to that, I think in your part of the world Fundy National Park is a perfect example of what I think the federal government, Parks Canada, and other jurisdictions have done right, at least in terms of trying to plot a vision.

Instead of talking about a buffer, what they do is they say, okay, what is the resource inside and outside of the park that is really important? It's the pine marten. So what they're looking at is, first, how do we maintain Fundy National Park and restore its ecological integrity, and second, how do we reconfigure logging and other activities outside of the park so that the species will survive? Because we know the park is not small enough, the boundaries are straight-line—they've been logged up to, in some cases—and the pine marten is disappearing.

What they do, then, is pick a particular species and say, okay, how do we manage the park and the adjacent landscape together in such a way that we reconfigure human activity so this that species survives?

I would urge you to look at Fundy as a good example that has started us down that path.

• 1330

Mr. Harvey Locke: May I add a quick sentence to that?

The Chair: Briefly, yes.

Mr. Harvey Locke: The question about where it stops is a land-use-driven analysis. The real problem we have is that right now we know we're failing nature. The question is, how do we reinvent the way we use landscape so we're not failing nature any more? That's really what this challenge is about, reorienting our thinking as to how we can manage landscape so that everything in it flourishes, including us. We haven't done that well yet.

Mr. Mark Muise: You talked about balance, and I understand....

Am I done?

The Chair: Well, if you are very brief....

Mr. Mark Muise: I'm always brief, Mr. Chairman, you know that. You've said that yourself.

The Chair: Yes, but it means three answers sometimes.

Mr. Mark Muise: Maybe we should direct our comments to our guests, then.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Mark Muise: I've lost my train of thought here.

We've talked about balance. If I, for example, have a piece of property that is three miles away from a park boundary, and at some point that becomes part of some development I want to do, why should I be penalized, let's say, if I can't develop that piece of property for whatever reason, because I might fall in that boundary, in that that danger of the adjacency?

I understand what parks are for. I fully recognize and support that. But I don't know where it's going to stop and where we restrict and where we don't.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I think that's a really important question, because when we talk about managing activities outside parks, that's what people think.

I mean, first of all, this bill and some of the changes we suggest are not to impinge on the jurisdiction of the province. In most cases, particularly in national parks, you're talking about federal lands inside, provincial lands outside. There isn't anything in here to penalize you being three kilometres away from the park. What we're looking for is something that breaks those two solitudes.

Your development may not affect the park, but let's say it's right smack in the headwaters of a stream that runs into the park. What's happened before is that there's no cooperation. Parks Canada runs the national park on its own. You run your property on its own. The provincial government, it does its own thing.

The problem is, Parks Canada hasn't stepped out of the box. We haven't broken down those two solitudes. Now, that's starting to happen more, and for one reason—the amendment in 1988 on ecological integrity. So we want to see that continue. That's why we suggested an amendment that talks about cooperation.

We were just involved in the hearings of the Cheviot Mine outside Jasper National Park. The proponent says, hey, you guys haven't complained to us for 16 years about any impact outside. The reason is, there's been no cooperation. There's no federal-provincial forum to do research or anything.

So those are the kinds of things that need to be done more of. We want the National Parks Act to signal to Parks Canada that it's time for you to get involved—not penalized, not stopped; get involved. In a number of national parks they are, but that signal has to come from Parliament across the system.

The Chair: Mr. Laliberte, you're going to be the closing star.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

I would like to ask the gentlemen their perspectives on clauses 9 and 35 of the bill. There are recommendations that could be considered to create a more fair language amongst park communities and the elected councils or the councils that are created in these communities.

I didn't identify it in your briefs, but I thought it was a crucial one to raise with you since you have relationships with communities and you do have probably members who serve on these boards as well that may have seen or taken exception to this—

The Chair: What clause are you referring to?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Clause 9, which reads:

Powers in relation to land use, community planning and development in park communities may not be exercised by a local government body, except—

Mr. Harvey Locke: I can tell you where this comes from, and I can also tell you we fully support it. This comes from what was basically the experiment of giving Banff community planning powers under Alberta's Planning Act.

• 1335

The problem then, as you might recall from the big public debate we had a few years ago about how much development we have in Banff, became this remarkable assertion that oh, well, we're a town under Alberta's Planning Act, and therefore the federal government has no authority over managing national parks. This was an argument made with a straight face by people: Oh, well, we're a town now, so go away, federal government, you have no role.

It was absurd. In fact, if you read the incorporation agreement, it was very clear that this wasn't the case, but there was a massive, massive public fight about that. Frankly, then, it's a failure to go to that model.

This doesn't mean that local people don't participate. I've been very involved, for example, in the community plans for Lake Louise discussions. There have been a lot of consultations with an awful lot of local people. I've been in a lot of meetings with them.

Parks Canada actually engages these local people at great length in talking about stuff, but I think Peter hit the nail on the head: We still have to accept that when we're in a national park, the national interest is the overriding interest. The local input is valued but it is not paramount.

We had this huge problem with the Town of Banff asserting that it was somehow a different body because it had this former provision, which needs to be removed. So we really support the amendments.

The Chair: Mr. Poole.

Mr. Peter Poole: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will respond in writing to this more fully, but I would just like to mention one thing from our brief concerning the planning function under clause 9, and even under clause 35, concerning Banff.

We recommend two things. The first is that there is explicit mention in this bill of the precautionary principle that is part already of statutory plans in the national parks. The precautionary principle has been defined well in a consensus statement that we append as part of our submission.

The second main point is that these planning processes, in both the town and in other communities, be modelled after the mandate and procedures of conservation planning commissions.

The Chair: Have you any other questions, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, not at the moment.

The Chair: Thank you very much to the panel for joining us today. We really appreciate your information and certainly your commitment to the park system. We really appreciate it very much. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.