CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 26, 1998

• 1114

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the order of reference of the House dated March 19, 1998, we are to study Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.

Before we start, I would like once again, this time formally on the record, to apologize to Mr. Lee and the others here for the late start. The whip's office advised me that all the committees of the House are sitting at this time, or most of them, and people are duplicated in different committees where there are motions. We're trying to get government members from other committees as soon as we can free them, but right now it's extremely difficult. We're expecting one other to come.

I apologize to you, Mr. Lee and colleagues.

I would like to turn the floor over to you, Mr. Lee.

• 1115

Mr. Tom Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We accept the apologies for the lateness. We will always be here when you need us and work from there.

I'd like to introduce my staff who are here to assist me. Henry Schultz is from the justice department, Wendy Bergeron is our human resource person, Mike Fay is in the financial area, and

[Translation]

everyone knows Laurent Tremblay, I think. He does not have an i.d. card,

[English]

but you have seen him before on the Saguenay bill. We welcome him here to help us this morning.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few short remarks to introduce the bill and not take up very much of the committee's time.

Fundamentally this bill does five things. It establishes a permanent organization to manage Canada's special places. It creates an organization reporting directly to a minister, and that is part of an overall restructuring and de-layering program that, with the completion of this bill, will have been completed. It also provides new authorities in financial management, new authorities in human resources management, and new administrative flexibilities.

We have tried in the preparation of this bill, and were assisted greatly by consultations we held across Canada, to incorporate three major themes of what I would describe as stewardship.

Firstly, we focused on the role of Parliament and insisted through the bill and the legislation that the traditional powers of Parliament be retained. In fact the bill provides for enhanced accountability in that relationship.

The second element of stewardship is the role of the minister. Under the bill that is before the committee, the minister retains full powers of direction to ensure that these places, which belong to all Canadians, are in fact managed and directed by those people who are elected representatives of Canadians.

Finally, the agency remains subject to policy direction, whether it's ministerial, cabinet, or parliamentary direction, and that provides the framework for the agency.

We hope through this bill to achieve three particular things. One is continued service to Canadians. Secondly, we hope to increase our ability to continue to provide additional parks and new sites for Canadians. And thirdly, we want to continue to enhance accountability. We think all of these will be achieved as benefits that will flow to Canadians with the acceptance of this bill in Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, those are my opening remarks. I would be pleased, if you wish to proceed, to have Justice provide an overview of the bill itself.

The Chairman: I think it would be well worth while for Mr. Schultz to provide an overview, yes, from a legal standpoint.

[Translation]

Mr. Henry Schultz (Legal Counsel, Constitutional and Administrative Law Section, Department of Justice): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will give you a brief overview of the bill, during which I will point out the most important clauses.

First of all, there is the preamble, which describes the new Agency's mission.

I would like to draw your attention to clause 2, which contains the definitions of the terms used in the bill. During my overview, I will refer to the table of provisions at the beginning of the bill. You can see that it contains the divisions that I will refer to occasionally.

The section on the establishment of the Agency includes clause 4, which says that it is the Minister of Canadian Heritage who is responsible for the Agency. That is also the minister who runs the agency.

• 1120

[English]

Clause 5 authorizes the agency to exercise statutory powers conferred on the minister under other acts that relate to national parks, national historic sites, other protected heritage areas, and related heritage programs. All of those terms are defined in clause 2.

[Translation]

Clause 6 refers to the Agency's mission and clause 8 to the ancillary powers that enable the Agency to fulfil its mandate.

[English]

I refer also particularly to clause 9, which refers to choice of goods and services providers. It gives a special authority to this agency to seek to get the authority to acquire goods and services from outside the public service, with Governor in Council and Treasury Board authority.

[Translation]

The next section deals with the organization of the Agency. Clause 10 deals with the appointment of the chief executive officer, whose role is described in great detail in clause 12, especially subclause 12(4), under which the chief executive officer is obliged to consult with persons interested in matters for which the Agency is responsible. So it is a fairly important clause.

Then there is the section which contains the clauses on human resources. Clause 13 contains important terms and conditions. Subclause 13(1) gives the chief executive officer the authority to staff positions and subclause 13(3), the authority to set the employment conditions for Agency staff.

[English]

The next clause contains reference to the charter for the agency, which, as Mr. Lee mentioned, will be a publicly available charter. It will set out the values and principles of the agency governing the provision of services by the agency and the management of its human resources.

I would also particularly refer you to the financial provisions in clauses 19 to 22, which contain new authorities, particularly those relating to the re-spending of revenues by the agency, in clause 20, and particular appropriations authority in clause 19.

Clause 21 provides for the establishment of a new special purpose account, called the new parks and historic sites account, and contains the rules governing those.

Clause 22 is a special authority allowing for advances to be made to that account.

Clauses 23 to 30 contain provisions authorizing the minister to charge fees under this statute for services provided by the agency and for privileges conferred by the agency.

Clauses 31 to 35 refer to the various reports to be provided by the agency, most of which will be tabled in Parliament. Clause 31 deals with reports on the state of Canadian protected heritage areas and heritage protection programs.

I should underline that the obligation to issue reports under clause 31 is in addition to the authority to issue reports on the state of national parks. The obligation to issue that particular report remains under the National Parks Act. This is an additional reporting authority. Then, of course, as you see, there are requirements to have management plans, corporate plans, annual reports and reports on the human resources regime.

Finally, clause 36 provides that it's the Auditor General of Canada who is the auditor of the agency.

Those are the substantive provisions of the bill. The next two parts contain transitional provisions and consequential amendments.

The transitional provisions deal mainly with personnel matters. Most of those govern the rules applying to the transfer of employees from the Department of Canadian Heritage to the agency.

• 1125

Most of the consequential amendments are standard consequential amendments. Most of them list the new agency in schedules, such as that of the FAA, which have general application, or there are consequential amendments where it's necessary to refer specifically to personnel hired by the agency. I refer to consequential amendments, say to the National Parks Act or under the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, where it's necessary to remove reference to persons employed under the Public Service Employment Act and specifically indicate that they will now be employed in the agency.

That is perhaps too brief a summary of the bill, but I would be pleased to answer more particular legal questions on these provisions in the course of the session today. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Schultz.

Mr. Lee, is there anybody else in your group who wants to add to this, or are you ready for questions now?

Mr. Tom Lee: We would be ready for questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): First off, Mr. Lee and your colleagues, I welcome you here. I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. We'll be taking a look at it in detail to find out where we can make improvements, but certainly the intent is something the Reform Party has been pushing for for a long time and I congratulate you on this legislation.

On clause 10, I have just a quick question. What was the rationale in clause 10, where it talks about the CEO being appointed for a term of five years, the term to be renewed for another five? That isn't common with an ADM or a DM. Why was that written into this legislation? It's just a curiosity.

Mr. Tom Lee: My understanding is it's a fairly standard provision. It would simply provide that a person can serve more than one term.

The distinction between a CEO and a deputy or assistant deputy minister is that they do not have a specific period on appointment. That's fundamentally what is being dealt with there.

Mr. Jim Abbott: That was my curiosity: why it was felt important enough to put in legislation that there be a time period for this person, who is the equivalent of an ADM.

Mr. Tom Lee: I guess the main difference, again, is that appointments are for a fixed period, so it leaves open the question of whether or not a person could be reappointed. This is simply for greater clarity that a person could be reappointed if it was so determined by the prime minister.

Mr. Jim Abbott: In clause 13, under human resources, I heard Mr. Schultz mentioning—and I'm sorry, I hadn't got to the clause in the bill which deals particularly with the collective agreements and things of that nature— How will the personnel of Parks Canada, from the top to the bottom, relate to their equivalents in the actual department? In other words, what will the differences be?

Mr. Tom Lee: There will be a number of expected differences. One expectation is that they would have a different bargaining unit. At the same time it would be different only in the sense that there could be a difference in the number of bargaining units we now have compared with what we might have in the future.

We would expect that there would be a different classification system in place. That's an element.

There's a prospect for some variation in those items which are negotiated, because employees of the agency will be negotiating directly with the head of the agency rather than with Treasury Board. There could be variations in that respect.

Mr. Jim Abbott: What I'm trying to understand, and probably not even so much for myself as for people reading this transcript and trying to come to an understanding of this, particularly for parks employees, is will they see themselves as advantaged, disadvantaged, or at the same level? In other words, presumably the structure will be different within the park agency from what it would be under the department. I'm just assuming that. Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. But whether that's the case or not, when Parks Canada moves into the parks agency, is there any substantive change that will advantage or disadvantage the current or future employees relative to them potentially joining Heritage Canada in another department?

• 1130

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm going to respond, and then I'll ask Wendy to also respond.

I believe the first point is a structural point in terms of changes in structure and so on. It can be said that the organization that we now have in place is very much the organization that will move into the agency. There are still some minor adjustments to occur in the corporate services area, but those are not so much structural changes as simply some sharing of resource issues. So the structure that we put in place about a year ago January is in fact the structure that will move straight into the agency.

The second question relates, I believe, to accessibility back into the regular public service by employees. The arrangement that will be put in place immediately upon the creation of the agency is that the employees of the agency will have access to jobs within the Department of Canadian Heritage and through that into the larger public service, obviously.

There are some other organizations with which we would probably like to have that type of reciprocal relationship over time as well. We have some specialized staff in, for example, scientific and resource fields, while the Department of Canadian Heritage doesn't have those types of staff. There will therefore be benefits in getting into a similar relationship with a department such as Environment or one on the historical side, such as museums. Those remain to be put in place, but at the initial point the access is through the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I don't know whether you have any other points you would want to respond to, Wendy.

Mr. Abbott, I don't know if I fully responded to your questions.

Ms. Wendy Bergeron (Director, Human Resources Management Strategies, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): Perhaps I'll just make one other point.

Upon transfer of employees from the parks program of the Department of Canadian Heritage to the agency, perhaps another important point to underline is that those employees would transfer with their existing collective agreements, as well as with the existing unions that represent them, for the transitional period. They also continue and will continue to be subject to access to the government's pension plan, the superannuation plan, as well as standard benefit programs that employees enjoy today in the government related to dental insurance, health insurance and so forth.

Mr. Jim Abbott: And issues like seniority and that kind of thing will pass along as well.

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: Any of the benefits and entitlements that come in collective agreements will transfer across, and as part of normal collective bargaining there will then be any changes that would come through that process between the unions that would represent agency employees and the CEO of the agency as the employer.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have more, but I—

The Chairman: Yes, okay, I'll come back to you, Mr. Abbott.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I would like to go back to that question and delve into it further. First of all, I apologize for being late; I was at Question Period.

In this bill, I do not see any official guarantee that the employees will not come out losers after the two-year transition period. The powers of the chief executive officer seem quite broad to me. The employer's rights are clearly described, but I did not see very much about the employees' rights. The employer has the right to lay off, and terminate employment for cause. Unless I missed something, that seems like a big step backwards given the progress made in working conditions. I get the feeling we're falling into the trap of being arbitrary, with a potential for patronage.

Could you clarify that for me?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm going to deal with this in two parts, one on what I would consider the larger questions and one that I'll then have Wendy respond on.

• 1135

There are a number of checks and balances placed into the human resources regime. The first of these is the requirement that the organization establish and make public the human resources values that it's operating under. That is assisted by a very important element, and it's probably the first time that you would have seen this in any type of public service; that is, the human resources values and principles are subject to an independent third-party review at least every five years. And I do not believe or am not aware of any other accountability system that has that built in. This is an indication of the importance of this aspect.

The second check and balance is that the head of agency, prior to commencing collective bargaining, has to receive a negotiating mandate from the President of Treasury Board, and as you're aware, the President of Treasury Board is currently the overseer of public service bargaining. So the head of agency has to go to the President of Treasury Board to get a negotiating mandate.

There are essentially two elements that the President of Treasury Board will review. One will be the overall compensation package, dealing with the dollar amount. But the other one—and it relates more directly to the question that you're raising—is that the head of agency will be expected to, and the President of Treasury Board will, review any sensitive or precedent-setting types of proposals contained within the negotiation as to whether those set precedents across the public service or whether there's some aberration occurring on human rights issues and so on. That is the second point.

I think the third important check and balance is around an item which Wendy mentioned. Under the structure that is proposed, the employees of the agency remain under the Public Service Superannuation Act, and their medical, dental, disability insurance plans and so on, that whole— So they are protected well within that entire package. We have—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Even after the two-year transition?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, that's true.

[English]

In terms of other types of authorities provided in agency structures, it is our understanding that there is nothing distinctive in terms of providing extra powers to the head of this agency vis-à-vis other agencies. In fact, as I've indicated to you, we have, I believe, strengthened the protection of employees by a number of important clauses that we've put into the legislation.

[Translation]

Wendy, have I forgotten something?

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: Ms. Tremblay, when employees are transferred to the Agency, they will go with their collective agreement intact and will remain members of the union that currently represents them. Any change after that, if there is any, and there will be, will be done through the normal process of collective bargaining between the new employer, namely the Agency, and the union that will represent the Agency's employees.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Exactly. But since there will be fewer of them, they will not be as sure of representing a critical mass or of having the clout of the Public Service Alliance. They will no longer be part of it. The bargaining will be between the Agency's chief executive officer and the union representing the employees. So they could be treated differently than those of the public service. Is that correct?

• 1140

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: As Mr. Lee mentioned, there will be some standardization since the president and chief executive officer must be at the bargaining table after his mandate is approved.

However, I would like to highlight the advantages of negotiating directly with the unions representing the employees of the Canadian Parks Agency.

As you know, at Parks Canada, our workplace is somewhat unusual compared to that of the public service. We are not located in Ottawa, in a building on Sparks Street. We work in small towns, villages, in the country, in parks and on sites.

Right now, since Treasury Board is the employer of all public service employees, it must take into account what is preferable for that whole critical mass, for a much greater number of employees than our group, as you said. It can happen, and it does, but our employment conditions at Parks Canada cannot be taken into account. so when we work with our unions, one of our objectives will be to finally discuss our own work conditions and to reach a suitable agreement.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I will try to be the devil's advocate to clearly understand the real issues that represents for employees. Will you not continue getting government funding? Perhaps you will have to increase park entrance fees a little because you will need some sources of revenue. But there must not be too many people in order to protect the parks environment. So at some point, you may get a mandate from Treasury Board to adjust and to negotiate a 10 per cent drop in salary. That is a possibility, since that would affect only your group. It is within the realm of possibilities. I am not saying it will happen, but it is a valid option, if the situation gets tough.

You realize that is the matter that concerns us most about this bill. Employees are being transferred and there is a two-year transition period. It is all fine if everything runs smoothly, if everyone gets the same funding, etc., but it the axe falls in two years, we will kick ourselves for having passed this bill as is.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay (Executive Director for Quebec, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): You could look at it another way. You have to remember that Parks Canada manages land and assets. In this bill, the government has kept our obligations with regard to the Act that governs us, especially the National Parks Act. Some requirements are inescapable.

First of all, there is the question of protecting what I would call the assets. There are 6 billion dollars worth of assets throughout the country. There is also the mandate to enhance the land and to welcome visitors.

There have just been two program reviews. This exercise has enabled us to finalize what I would call the streamlining of resources. Transferring Parks Canada from a department to an agency is currently being done with the existing resources and the resources that have been recognized as being necessary for operating the sites or the parks in question.

I would also like to add the following. You come from the Lower Saint-Lawrence-Gaspé region, where each of the sites is somewhat off the beaten track. You have to take certain factors into account when hiring staff, when you train employees, and when you use them for operational purposes. We have some basic requirements that will be maintained, if not increased in some respect.

• 1145

So as Mr. Lee explained earlier, you have to remember that the exercise does provide some guarantee because some acts remain in effect. The only difference is that some particular features apply specifically to our operations, such as distance, the need to stay on site and the seasonal nature of our operations. The new act will clarify these issues and deal with them more thoroughly. I think the employees will come out ahead.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I do have other questions, but I will let someone else ask some.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I have several questions, but here is the first. Could you tell me where, in the bill, it says that the Agency is subject to the Official Languages Act? I am looking for it and cannot find it.

[English]

Mr. Henry Schultz: The agency will be a department for the purpose of the Financial Administration Act and as a result of being a department under that act will automatically be covered by the Official Languages Act.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. Is there reference to it in the bill? I do not see it.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: [Transcriber's notes: Inaudible]

Mr. Henry Schultz: Precisely. I say we don't need it, but it is not necessary.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It is up to us to decide whether we think it would be good for the Agency to be subject to Official Languages Act, as we do, as parliamentarians, for other bills governing CN or other agencies that are not necessarily privatized. There is no clear reference here.

Mr. Henry Schultz: No, not directly, but I would point out that it may be necessary for a Crown Corporation, because I am not sure whether the Official Languages Act applies automatically to every Crown Corporation. But here we are talking about a department that is governed by the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine. In that case, if I may, Mr. Lee or Mr. Schultz, I would ask you whether in the case of an agency being subject to the Official Languages Act, you would have any objection to that being stipulated in the act that creates the agency.

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: My answer to that, Mr. Bélanger, is I would not have any objections. I don't know what the legal construct is, but I would have absolutely no objections.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you. So I wish to advise you, Mr. Chairman, that I will be moving an amendment to that effect in due course.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I would suggest, if it wouldn't be out of order, that before we come back to any amendments we figure out the best legal way of putting that within the context of the law so that we can—

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I will move an amendment to the bill that makes the Agency directly subject to the Official Languages Act. We will not rely on interpretations nor will we leave the door open to squabbles. It will be directly subject to Canada's Official Languages Act. It is simple. It is clear.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have no problem with this if I am told it is. If I cannot be told directly what is being said indirectly, then I give up.

Mr. John Godfrey: We will look into the matter further.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It says directly in the Official Languages Act who is subject to it, and the Agency is.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In the Official Languages Act, there is no mention of the Canadian Parks Agency.

The Chairman: Look, we're not going to start a discussion, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: As we just did, as a matter of fact. I asked the question.

The Chairman: We will give you the floor. We will review it.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can you give me an idea of the current number of employees, the number that would be transferred and the projected number in two years' time and perhaps even further if you have those projections?

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: Parks Canada has close to 5,000 staff at peak season, Mr. Bélanger. As you know, Parks Canada is a seasonal operation, so I'm giving you a rounded off number at peak season.

All of the employees who are currently working in Parks Canada will receive offers of employment to the Canadian Parks Agency.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And?

Mr. Tom Lee: The third part was the future. One would like to say our reductions are 100% complete, but if you would believe 99.9% complete— We are looking at the approximate workforce of the future at this point.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a third question, if I may.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, may I ask for a clarification on your question?

• 1150

Ms. Bergeron, does your figure of 5,000 include part-time and full-time employees?

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Both?

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Here is my third question. The bill talks about funding, of which 80 per cent would come from public funds and 20 per cent from revenues generated by the Agency's operations. Could you tell me what the current percentages are and how they compare to those put forward? What are they at the moment?

Mr. Tom Lee: Those are the current percentages.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is the mover's intention to have the proportion remain at 80-20, or to have it eventually changed? I imagine it can be maintained at 80-20 if it is put in the Act.

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes.

[English]

It's virtually at that ratio and it should remain. It's between 75:25 and 80:20. It's in that range. We have not identified any prospect of changing—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Does the exact reference establish a target or a minimum or a maximum? I'd have to look at it again.

Mr. Tom Lee: No, the 80:20 is our current relationship. In our long-range business plans, we've looked at projections, and we basically see that staying within the 75:25 to 80:20 range.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all for now.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey and then Mr. Abbott.

Mr. John Godfrey: One question I have has to do with the way in which the new regime will advance, retard, or have no effect on the completion of the national parks system. I know the plans are in place and the areas where we are deficient have been identified. There are future parks in various stages of development, and there are two considerations. Well, there are probably more, but there are the local negotiations definitions and all the rest of it, which allow you to create a park, and then there are the financial resources that can get behind it.

I would gather in a general way that the parks system will have more dollars in it because of this change of legislation, because you're able to retain revenues and all those sorts of things. If there were no additional sums of money and you were simply going on the projections of future revenues from 75:25, 80:20, or whatever it is—and I know this is a tricky question—if no political action were taken to increase the amount of money from the public purse, what's a realistic date by which one might conceivably see the completion of the parks system, at least in the sense of covering all the areas of Canada you've identified?

Mr. Tom Lee: I'll give you a two-part response to that question.

The first deals with the financial relationship to the number of parks or historic sites. What we have provided in our budgets and what we've been able to project within the agency in terms of revenue-retention authorities and so on is that we will be able to finance new national parks at a very base level. The northern parks don't require a lot of capital, but southern parks do, such as the interlake area in Manitoba and the Gulf Islands.

Our focus in our financing is on establishment, not development. That's the primary objective, so that level of financing has been provided in the current budget.

On the historic site side, that's a different element, because the historic site is not a closed system, as you are able to recognize. I suppose one could always argue that there's the need for either more or less money to create more or fewer historic sites. That's a more difficult question.

Mr. John Godfrey: I just want to come back to the first part, though. What you're basically saying is it's like roughing in the house. You set up the basic structure for a park, and then as the money becomes available, it becomes more refined and you put in more resources. But it's the basic carving out the territory and establishing the boundaries and having some minimal presence.

Where are you in that process? If we understood that that would be the minimum sense of completing the park system, where are you?

• 1155

Mr. Tom Lee: We would have 16 new national parks to create. That's what is left in the balance of the national park system, and we are actively negotiating— I don't know what level of detail you wish, but we're active on a very large number of fronts right now.

Mr. John Godfrey: But at the current rate, with the money you have, you might expect to see sort of roughed-in parks, if I can put it that way—all 16—by what date, given your current projections?

Mr. Tom Lee: We're still working under a government objective of working toward the completion of the park system, and I guess one answer is that we'll wait until the year 2000 and see if we will have achieved 100% or 98% or 99%, but I think the best response I can give to the honourable member is that we are very actively negotiating at this time.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chairman: What was the objective, Mr. Lee?

Mr. Tom Lee: To work toward the completion of the park system by the year 2000.

The Chairman: Correct.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm just curious. Under clause 22, I see that to provide added financial flexibility the agency would be able to access advances to the account from a $10 million statutory appropriation. What is the purpose of that $10 million statutory appropriation? Is there some concern that entry fees won't match up? Does this $10 million have to do exclusively with changing to a park agency, and if so, why?

Mr. Tom Lee: I wouldn't say it has anything exclusively to do with moving to the park agency. The problem or the opportunity that it's trying to deal with is that we have classic cases that occur all the time where we— I'll give you an example. We're buying land in the Gulf Islands right now. There's a property available, but I've spent all my money for the year. What do I do? I have some more money next year, but I can't spend next year's money. This is intended to deal with what I would see as short-term interim financing, that type of thing, so that you can buy that land when it's available, recognizing that we built the overall cashflow into the long-term business plan, but being able to take care of those needs. It seemed very much to be an instrument for short-term financing to accompany what is really good public decision making.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So you see it as a revolving account.

Mr. Tom Lee: It's revolving in the sense that it—

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. Here's my interpretation of the term “revolving”. You have the $10 million and the property is there and available for $2.5 million. So there's this theoretical purchase and then the $2.5 million dollars would then be budgeted for and paid back into the $10 million.

Mr. Tom Lee: Exactly.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. I'm trying to get a very clear understanding of the difference between Parks Canada and the parks agency—that's the basis of my question—so that I can compare.

Parks Canada went through a very unsuccessful period of contracting out, if you'll permit me to say so, and I'm just wondering if in the future with the park agency there is anything in this legislation— I'm not asking about whether you should or shouldn't contract out or whether you will or you won't. That is not the question. The question is what is the difference between Parks Canada and the parks agency in terms of the ability or the flexibility to contract out? How do Parks Canada and the parks agency compare?

Mr. Tom Lee: Correct me if I'm wrong here, Henry, or if you tucked away anything that I'm not aware of, but that matter is not dealt with in the legislation. There is no impact one way or the other.

Mr. Jim Abbott: And then in the same kind of question, now I'm concerned about leaseholders. Mr. Lee, as you know, I've been particularly concerned about commercial leaseholders—but not exclusively—who have leases in perpetuity. And of course my point has been that Parks Canada should be honouring that or at least compensating them for the value of the fact that they have a lease in perpetuity. So under the expenditure, if that should be the case—again, it's basically the same question—is there going to be any change in or diminishing of leaseholders' ability to be able to realize value for their leases or in the relationship with leaseholders, again, from Parks Canada to the parks agency?

• 1200

Mr. Tom Lee: There would be no difference between Parks Canada and the parks agency in terms of the basic policies that would apply. I don't know whether I can be specific in any response to your question, Mr. Abbott. As you are aware, in the mountain parks, many of the leases have been running on 10-year packages in terms of pricing, and there's a price review coming up for the year 2000.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm also thinking of Riding Mountain, where you have leases in perpetuity, and the leaseholders have just been advised, “Sorry”. But again, that's another topic for another time. I just wanted to confirm that there was no difference between Parks Canada and the parks agency.

Mr. Tom Lee: No.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

The final question I have is with respect to the multi-year lapsing. This is clause 19. This is an excellent concept. It does away with putting up signs because you had money left over in your snow-clearing budget because of El Niño. This makes nothing but sense. But is there clarity in this legislation? Do you feel absolutely comfortable?

On the multi-year lapsing, if the legislation isn't correct, you could potentially end up with the thing running away. In other words, you have a two-year, you arrive at the end of the first year, you're carrying forward whatever the case may be, and then that becomes part of the next two-year plan and that becomes part of the next two-year plan at the end of the expiry of one year. So is there absolute clarity in this legislation?

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm going to ask Henry to respond to that. My initial response would be that the control on the question of running away would be applied by the Auditor General. As you know, there would be an annual Auditor General report.

Henry, have I missed something here?

Mr. Henry Schultz: I've no doubt that this clearly authorizes multi-year lapsing and that there are controls such as the auditing reference. Treasury Board will always have controls such as the authority to approve corporate plans and that sort of thing, and Treasury Board will also be able to have controls on a year-by-year basis, because, multi-year lapsing or not, the agency will always be coming to the board on an annual basis to appropriate money.

I am confident that if it ran away, as it were, the Treasury Board would be able to or some mechanism could be applied to put it back under control. I don't know the details of how that would be done, but I would be glad to provide them, unless one of my colleagues can answer that.

Mr. Tom Lee: Mr. Abbott, the final control is always Parliament, and there would be an annual report to the public accounts committee, so there's another mechanism of review in there, reports that would be available.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have one final question. If Bill Gates wanted to put his face on the side of Mount Rundle, that would not be allowed under Parks Canada. Under the parks agency, would there be any difference? That obviously is a totally frivolous question, but you understand that some of the adversaries to this legislation say this legislation will lead to the commercialization of the parks.

Mr. Tom Lee: The direct, full, and complete response to that is that will never happen, either in the current situation or in the future. No.

The Chairman: I'd just like to gain precision on one of the questions put by Mr. Abbott, especially in view of the clause-by-clause that's going to come up. When Mr. Abbott was asking about contracting and the changes between the existing situation and the parks agency, Mr. Lee, I took it you said you don't see any difference. I was wondering how you could amplify that in regard to clause 9, which specifically provides that on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, the agency may procure goods and services, including legal services, from outside the public service of Canada. I wondered if you could mention why this was put in. Was it with the idea of the parks agency effectively doing something different from now on, of doing more contracting out, of being allowed to do so? In your forecasts, do you provide for more contracting out and consultation fees?

• 1205

Mr. Tom Lee: Those are two quite distinctively different elements, and it's best to take the clause you're referring to. What we're trying to do in that clause is to, on the whole, eliminate intermediary processes. I'll give you two good examples.

Many of the works that are currently provided, where we go through Public Works and Government Services to get service done, are in fact provided outside. If you take our need to do a land appraisal, under the current system we would go to Public Works, which would then go outside. Under the scenario that would emerge here, we would go outside. We wouldn't go to a Public Works person in a certain location, such as Manitoba, to hire an appraiser who worked in Saskatoon when we need to do an appraisal in Batoche.

Another good example is land survey. Over the years, the government has divested itself of the actual capacity to do more and go outside. In this scenario, in the future we would go directly to the local land surveyor there, rather than going to Public Works, only to have them go to the local land surveyor. That's basically the situation we're managing there.

The Chairman: So there is no intent here to give you a sort of leeway for much more contracting out or consultation services outside.

Mr. Tom Lee: No.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a suggestion and two questions. At the end of the bill, starting with clause 46, there are some consequential amendments. The first clause pertains to the Access to Information Act. We could simply copy it and entitle it the "Official Languages Act".

First of all, is there anything in the bill that guarantees that contracting out and the tendering process will be done impartially? We learned a bit of a lesson recently with Heritage Canada. Among other things, we noticed that the same individual was obtaining contracts in Madagascar, Quebec, Canada, just about everywhere. It concerns us when we see someone so well connected. Is Parks Canada opting for transparency or the opposite?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm totally in favour of transparency, Madame Tremblay,

[Translation]

and I would hope that you would inform me about any abnormalities that you come across, because this is very important.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: One clause concerns me. Perhaps I don't understand it properly. I'm referring to clause 8. It concerned me when I read it in the bill. Now, I have just read the explanation and the "etc." bothers me, as well as paragraph (f). Could you tell me whether this clause would really authorize the Agency to sell a park and privatize it?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: No, only Parliament can establish the size of a park.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Furthermore, I'm told that in certain places in Canada, an employee who works 60 hours is only paid for 40 and the 20 hours are set aside so that the employee can be paid for a longer period of time and be eligible for employment insurance. Are you familiar with this procedure? Is this practice commonplace, on a large scale, or are these isolated cases? Do you know what would happen to the boss of a private firm who would do such a thing?

• 1210

Do you know if this is going on in your organization? You don't know?

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: I'm not aware of this.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: And if you were told about it, what would you do?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: I would certainly do something.

Going back to the previous question about selling or privatizing a park, I don't think that this is about privatization. Since the Agency was established, we have always said that when it comes to creating a park or something else, we would always try to find the best solution and, if necessary, the best private sector firm able to provide the service. Take the example of the Gaspé cruises. This type of thing will continue to occur, but there's no question of privatizing the entire operation of the site.

Reference was also made to the appropriations, to obligations that we have with respect to commemoration or managing cultural heritage. These things will remain and we will continue to do this.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you. You've answered all my questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm interested in the marketing aspect of Parks Canada or the new agency. I'm curious as to whether the fact that we're now going to call it the Canadian Parks Agency has any connotation for your current or future marketing strategies. We're really dealing with two names currently: we have Parks Canada, and we have the national parks system. We call these objects national parks.

I just want to refresh my mind about how that works. When you are in the marketing business, you have an advertising campaign or you're part of another strategy, Tourism Canada or whatever, to market yourselves. What do you currently call yourselves? Do you call yourselves Canada's national parks, or do you call yourselves Parks Canada? What's the brand that you sell? And does this legislation have any impact on what you're currently doing in terms of marketing and branding and what you might do in the future?

I'm thinking it also has to do with branding in the sense that when you drive through the gate, Parks Canada— I'm trying to re-imagine all those parks I've driven in. Is it called Banff National Park? Can you help me with branding and marketing here and the impact this will or will not have on that?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes. Let me explain the current situation, and this is from various surveys we have done. We have found that Canadians as a whole, the average Canadian, are not always able to distinguish their national parks, so there's some confusion about what is a park. We have also found that Canadians—

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Lee. Just to understand it properly, are they able to distinguish between national parks and provincial parks?

Mr. Tom Lee: Or even some other parks.

If you ask them to give you five national parks they've visited, they won't always be national parks. They could be Gatineau Park, or they could be a local park. It's the nation's park in a different sense, but one can understand the confusion that starts to occur here. People take a big park like Algonquin, which is very well known in Ontario, and quite often see that in a national context, which in its own way is good.

The other part of the puzzle is that when you look at the organization Parks Canada, which is the brand name for the organization, you run across a similar situation. The number of people who can say Parks Canada, yes, that's the agency organization that looks after our national parks, is 20% or 30% or so.

What is proposed here is that we have an agency called the Canadian Parks Agency and that we focus on marketing the product Canadian parks rather than the “organization” Parks Canada, so it does get into the marketing issue. What are you marketing, the organization or the national product, the national park or the national historic site? On the basis of evidence we have, I think it would be our conclusion that we focus on marketing the product, that this is a Canadian park, a Canadian historic site, and not focus on who's delivering.

• 1215

Mr. John Godfrey: The legislation is essentially silent on those marketing issues in terms of any future campaign. I mean, when I drive in the park door, it won't say “Welcome to Banff Canadian Park”. No, it can't say that.

Let me understand this. How will you make that distinction? You identified a problem. You just said it was Canada's parks that would not solve your problem because that would include Algonquin and Gatineau and everything else. People do have some sense of it being a national park, so it is Canada's national parks, but—

Mr. Tom Lee: Mr. Godfrey, I have some of the same questions you have at this stage, but not the answers. I do know that there's an issue here that needs some attention, and that the situation we have now can be improved. I've outlined what I think the problems are. As for the actual marketing approach, I don't have it.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to make sure that we understand, this legislation does not deal with that issue.

Mr. Tom Lee: That's correct. It deals with the name of the agency, the Canadian Parks Agency.

Mr. John Godfrey: But you're not going to be promoting the name of the agency in a marketing campaign. That's what you're saying.

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm saying that the evidence we have indicates that we should be promoting the site or the park.

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You just have to allow the contractors' imagination free reign.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on that, I would argue that the legislation is not silent on that. If my colleague looks at paragraph 8(f), he'll see that the agency would have all the leeway it wishes to make sure its mission is accomplished.

[Translation]

I'd like to go back to the question raised by Ms. Tremblay. She asked whether or not this bill, and clause 8 in particular, prohibited the privatization of a park. But this is not what was said.

I believe you said, Ms. Tremblay, that this was not their intention, but you did not say that this was prohibited by the Act. Is that correct?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: The bill, in describing our mandate, states that we are to manage, protect, present and make accessible to the public the resources that the government considers to be of historic or natural importance to the nation.

The bill does not prohibit selling a park, but it will not be sold, given our mandate. The only difference, as I mentioned, is that some services—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, yes, that's fine.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: But as far as the rest is concerned, there is no question of selling.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: However, you're talking about the current will. It's the mission, the policy in place.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In my opinion paragraph 8(f) would allow this.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And perhaps beyond paragraph 8(f).

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: At any rate, I understood that paragraph (8f) would allow this to occur.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Paragraph 8(d) perhaps, or 8(c)

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In my opinion, paragraphs 8(c) and 8(f) would allow this to happen. In fact, if they need to get rid of a park in order reach their objectives, they will sell it. That is clear.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm relatively certain that the bill, as it is currently drafted, does not prohibit this.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It prohibits it.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: No. This bill compels us to abide by the legislation governing us. There is the National Parks Act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's an interesting argument. I'd like to refer to one or two paragraphs dealing with personnel.

Paragraph 13(2) states:

(2) Nothing in the Public Service Staff Relations Act shall be construed to affect the right or authority of the Chief Executive Officer—

So the bill says that this does not apply. Is that right? I believe the bill states somewhere else that since the Agency shall not be deemed to be a private enterprise, its employees will not benefit from the protection afforded by the Canada Labour Code.

Accordingly, if neither the Public Service Staff Relations Act nor the Canada Labour Code govern relations between employees and their employer, will the code of the Chief Executive Officer apply?

• 1220

[English]

Mr. Henry Schultz: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Are you reading subclause 13(2) as indicating that somehow the agency will not be subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act? That has a very specific intent. Definitely, the agency will be a separate employer. It's listed in schedule I to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It forms part of the public service governed by that act, and the agency will be a separate employer.

The specific purpose of this act is in what's called a management rights clause. Its intent is to mirror section 7 in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. That's intended to effectively preclude the agency from being forced to negotiate the matters referred to in paragraph 13(1)(b). Those matters cannot be the subject of negotiation, and subsequently the subject of recourses under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, unless the agency does it voluntarily.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I'm mistaken, please correct me. Elsewhere in the proposal, I think there's a reference somewhere that since the agency will not be deemed to be a commercial enterprise, the Canada Labour Code will not apply. Is that correct? Am I correct in that?

Mr. Henry Schultz: Only partially correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can you give me the reference?

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: If I might, I believe that this information was contained in the background note or one of the questions and answers.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Right.

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: It's not in the act per se.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But is it nonetheless accurate?

Mr. Tom Lee: So the Canada Labour Code would not apply?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So if it's not the Public Service Staff Relations Act and if it's not the Canada Labour Code, which code will apply? Will it be the director general's?

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: No, it's the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Except for things that are in paragraph 13(1)(b).

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: That's right. Those are standards, processes, and procedures around the staffing function.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What's left?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That is normally what is found in a collective agreement.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What's left?

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: The classification of positions, the establishment in terms—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, no, no. As for classification, it says later, in subclause 13(3)—I'm just translating as I go along here—that subsection 11(2) of the act does not apply and that the director general may determine classification.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That's a big problem.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

[Translation]

Ms. Wendy Bergeron: I'm trying to understand the question.

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You said that the Public Service Staff Relations Act did not apply in terms of what's involved in paragraph 13(1)(b), and those are delineated. Maybe I should go to the English text, and maybe we'll follow more closely. Then I asked: what's left? You said classification. I'm telling you that under paragraph 13(3)(a), classification is excluded, so what else is left?

Mr. Henry Schultz: As for the matters referred to in subclause 13(3), yes, they are excluded from the operation of the Financial Administration Act. Subsection 11(2) of the FAA gives powers to the Treasury Board as far as these matters are concerned. It gives Treasury Board powers over these matters in subsection 11(2) of the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I don't see subsection 11(2).

Mr. Henry Schultz: I'm sorry. Subclause 13(3) of this bill says that subsection 11(2) of the FAA does not apply with respect to the agency.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Oh, it's in the Financial Administration Act. I don't have that in front of me, so I don't know what's involved in that. You stumped me. I'll have to go and get that.

I can't carry on, Mr. Chairman, unless I know what subsection 11(2)—

The Chairman: Just hold it. While we wait for the act, Mr. Schultz, could you just give us an explanation? Then afterward we'll get the actual reference.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Okay, I'll try to explain it, Mr. Chairman.

Subclause 13(3) refers to matters that are currently covered by subsection 11(2) of the Financial Administration Act, and that provision gives authority to the Treasury Board, as I said, in personnel matters, including the items listed here. Those items there are all negotiable items and are matters that can be the subject of grievances before the Public Service Staff Relations Board under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

• 1225

The Public Service Staff Relations Act governs, if you will, labour relations matters that deal with the matters referred to in subclause 13(3).

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But 13(3) excludes those from the authority. It says that the director general has a free hand in there.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Yes. The purpose of 13(3), though, is specifically to make it clear that the Treasury Board will not have powers in respect of these matters in the agency.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The director general.

Mr. Henry Schultz: It will be sent over to the CEO, and any grievance that arises out of those particular matters referred to in subclause 13(3) can be referred to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and follow the grievance procedures under that act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Instead of this they'll be referred to the director general.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Excuse me. Ultimately no. The Public Service Staff Relations Act generally will be able to govern these matters here.

If you'll allow me to go back, I think I can try to make this clearer.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've already seen the light. We'll see.

[English]

Mr. Henry Schultz: Explaining the public service employment regime as a whole—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Where are you?

Mr. Henry Schultz: Where am I? I'm going to go back to subclause 13(1).

The best way to look at this is currently, if you'll allow me to lecture a little bit, in the federal public service—and I'd ask my human resources colleagues to interrupt me if I say something incorrect—unlike the private sector, where the authority to employ is usually exercised by the same person, the same person hires, the same person sets terms and conditions of employment, in the federal public service the authority to staff is generally given to the Public Service Commission under the Public Service Employment Act. That includes the authority to staff and includes things like establishing standards procedures governing appointment, lay-off, and termination of employment otherwise than for cause. Those are generally covered by the Public Service Employment Act.

For most of the public service other terms of conditions of employment that govern things like organization, classification, and certain types of termination, i.e., terminations for discipline, those sorts of powers— The Public Service Employment Act governs how you get the person into the organization, and once you get them in generally the Financial Administration Act, specifically subsection 11(2), applies. I'm conscious of not trying to turn this into a legal lecture, but I'm trying to give the background here.

What we're doing here is effectively in subclause 13(1)—speaking generally—we're replacing the Public Service Commission's authority under the PSEA and it gets replaced by the chief executive officer under subclause 13(1). The Treasury Board's powers effectively get transferred to the president under subclause 13(3).

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: My question then is which code, which methods, will the agency employ in its dealing with staff? If it's not the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and if it's not the Canada Labour Code or the Financial Administration Act, which will it be?

Mr. Henry Schultz: For things that are related to staffing, you're right, there currently is no code governing these matters. This is all—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There is. There's the Public Service Staff Relations Act, the Canada Labour Code, and the Financial Administration Act. And we've excluded all three and referred all authority to the director general. That's what you're telling us here.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Yes. The Public Service Commission no longer will have authority under the Public Service Employment Act in respect of matters referred to in subclause 13(1). Yes, the CEO will have authority there.

I should add that currently it's only the Public Service Employment Act that governs these matters now.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Right. So you've excluded that one. You've excluded the Public Service Staff Relations Act. You've just finished saying it's the only law that governs these particular relations, how they're coming in and all of that. Madam has confirmed that the Canada Labour Code ipso facto is excluded because it's not a commercial enterprise.

• 1230

You've confirmed that, correct?

A voice: Correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Now you've just added—I hadn't spotted that, so thank you very much—that also, because of subclause 13(3), you're eliminating subsection 11(2) of the Financial Administration Act, which governs classification and a bunch of other things.

So if you've excluded everything that we as a public body, the Government of Canada, use to harmonize our relations with the employees, what will you replace it with?

That's clear now?

Mr. Henry Schultz: Yes, it's clear, although I have to make a couple of corrections.

First of all, as far as staffing is concerned, you're right: procedures governing staffing will not be governed by the Public Service Employment Act. They will be governed by internal procedures that my colleagues can explain.

The other matters, the matters that Treasury Board used to have powers over and that were and are currently subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, will still be.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What are those?

Mr. Henry Schultz: The Public Service Staff Relations Act governs labour relations—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What will still be governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act?

Mr. Henry Schultz: The matters referred to in subclause 13(3). The Public Service Staff Relations Act will govern the matters referred to in subclause 13(3). So the employees will still have recourse. Generally speaking, they will be able to negotiate matters referred to in subclause 13(3) and will be able to enjoy recourses under the Public Service Staff Relations Act in respect of matters listed in subclause 13(3).

The Chairman: If I may make a suggestion here, our researchers did a paper relating to similar provisions of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. They will adapt it to this bill and produce a note for all the members, which will be circulated as soon as possible so we'll have it well in time for the clause-by-clause. It will set out very much.

If we carry on there, it's very difficult and gets very confusing. I appreciate what you're trying to do, Mr. Schultz, but if we have it in writing and the members can read it—and it will be available to you as well—you can just comment on it if you feel it's not as complete as you would want it to be. That's what I would suggest we do. The clerk will make sure all the members have it. It can also be available to the members of the ministry. So could we leave it at that?

Mr. Godfrey, you had asked for—

Mr. John Godfrey: I had only one wonderful suggestion, which was, were this not a legal text but a logical text—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Godfrey:—subclause 13(3) would read: “The Financial Administration Act does not apply (but the Public Service Staff Relations Act does) to what follows.” Is that what's really being said there?

Mr. Henry Schultz: Not exactly.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Godfrey: I give up. I'll wait for the note.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: —

[Inaudible—Editor] —saying what applies as opposed to what does not.

The Chairman: I told you you had a different question, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: No, Mr. Chairman, I want to give up.

The Chairman: I think you should give up.

Could I ask for three precisions on points that have been raised before?

[Translation]

As regards the question of selling, Mr. Tremblay, you said that we had to comply with the National Parks Act—

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: Yes.

The Chairman: —and according to the National Parks Act, a sale is not possible without the consent of the government. Have I understood correctly?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: That's right, because the territory on which the park will be built is covered by the Act and, consequently, the territory could not be changed, expanded or decreased without an amendment to the Act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Unless the purchased territory were bequeathed.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: No. In order for the Act to apply, things must be covered by the legislation. Otherwise the National Parks Act cannot apply.

The Chairman: I'd like to inform you of a second clarification.

[English]

The second point I wanted to check with you, Mr. Lee, refers to the marketing questions that have been raised by Mr. Godfrey. I'll take the example of something that is not a national park, say the Lachine Canal cycle path and everything, where it's all been put together by Parks Canada and you get the yellow signs, so it identifies it as a park that is not a national park but a part of the network of parks of Parks Canada.

• 1235

What happens in practice to these signs, the identification and the yellow— Is that all changed now? Is that subject to something new?

Mr. Tom Lee: Eventually the identity of the organization would be the Canadian Parks Agency, so over time, where you see now Parks Canada, you would see the Canadian Parks Agency. That would be the one change. Any other changes to colours or whatever are a different process or issue.

The Chairman: On the question of user fees, from information that we have obtained from the ministry, I take it that your business plan would be subject to user fees bringing in $70 million to supplement the budget. Is that correct?

What would happen if your projections of the numbers of guests in the park, of the numbers of people visiting the parks, turn out to be less, if the user fees turn out to be less than $70 million? If the agency then produces a deficit, is it responsible for its own deficit, or does it then come back to the government for an appropriation? What happens in the case where your projections happen to be wrong by $20 million, for argument's sake?

Mr. Tom Lee: If we were off by that much—and one could envisage that if it's a disastrous season in terms of weather and so on—we would not go into debt; we would go back to the government and say that we have a major problem here. We would ask them for help, I guess. That's how it would be handled.

The Chairman: Do I take it that, given normal conditions, with no weather catastrophes or anything, when you say $70 million, that figure is based on such solid assumptions that you are reasonably confident that this is a level of revenue that you will gain without commercialization with Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola or anything?

Mr. Tom Lee: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I was just asking where we are this year in terms of revenue. We are at or above that figure now.

The Chairman: In 1997-98 it was around $70 million, and I think you were counting on increasing amounts in future years.

Mr. Tom Lee: No, at this time we have not projected any income beyond the $70 million.

Is that correct, Mike, in terms of the business plan?

Mr. Michael Fay (Director, Strategic Business Services, Strategy and Plans Directorate, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Chairman, our planned revenue for 1998-99 is $74 million. It's $75.4 million for 1999-2000, and $75.7 million for the year after that. So we're pretty stable where we are.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: There's one question that came up in the debate, and it's a related question about access equity and making the parks system available to Canadians with average incomes and even below-average incomes, wherever possible.

It's an easy argument. I guess the question I'm asking is whether you make a distinction between easily accessible parks in your own minds or in your own plans, ones you can get to by bus or ones to which a family could drive with fairly minimal costs, and the ones where getting there is a huge barrier. You can't even get into equity arguments about access to Ellesmere Island National Park because it costs so much money just to get up there in the first place. You also have Wood Buffalo National Park in that very remote category, the Nahanni, and so on.

Just so we can get our minds wrapped around where access and equity are really issues, in terms of proximity to major centres of population or to nearby towns, how do you classify them, just off the top? How many parks are really areas where you have to think about whether the entrance fee is too high? I can think of Banff being close to Calgary, for instance—that sort of thing. But roughly speaking, of the total universe of current parks, what's the universe of relatively readily accessible parks?

Mr. Tom Lee: I think the answer to your question is that in the Arctic you're dealing with an entirely different situation, so we should place that aside. But after you get through that, when you're pricing at individual parks, you have to deal with each individual park.

• 1240

Basically, our policy is to have non-discriminatory entry fees. That is, non-discriminatory pricing at the park gate, or whatever, that would negatively impact through factors such as family income or family size.

The price sensitivity varies by product. A small historic site we see as very sensitive. Take a $2 entry fee and make it $2.50 and you can start to see impacts on visitation. It's very price-sensitive. On the other hand, a place like Louisbourg, which is offering a big product, is not nearly as price-sensitive in those types of areas. So we actually monitor this thing on a park-by-site basis annually and watch what impact, if any, we're having. As I say, one of the things we've seen is particularly small sites where people spend a relatively short amount of time—a historic site, one hour, Laurier House or something like that—are extremely price-sensitive.

Mr. John Godfrey: That would not be affected by this legislation?

Mr. Tom Lee: No, it's a problem that we—

Mr. John Godfrey: That's the philosophy in—

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? No.

Mr. Lee, I would like to thank you and your colleagues very sincerely for appearing before us and giving us answers to our questions. The other answers that we want to complete, especially in regard to the question from Mr. Bélanger, we'll get from the researchers, and if by any chance there needs to be additional information, you're going to be here during the clause-by-clause anyway. So we appreciate your participation, and we'll go on from here to hear some other witnesses. Thank you very much for appearing before us.

Mr. Tom Lee: Thank you.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.