CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 12, 1998

• 1114

[English]

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

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): On April 21, Paul Crête, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière du Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, was replacing me on this Committee and was assured that the briefs would be translated. On April 22, Mr. Mauril Bélanger was chairing the meeting in your absence and said:

[English]

“By the way, your document will be translated into French and available in that language as well”.

• 1115

[Translation]

At this time, French versions of these briefs have still not been distributed. It is unacceptable to expect us to prepare for as an important a meeting as this without having those documents. I had understood that we would be holding a marathon session to try and complete the clause-by-clause consideration today. Again, it is unacceptable that I am expected to prepare for today's session with only the English-language documents available to me.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay, you are absolutely right. I am sorry about the delay. It is due to the significant volume of translations the House of Commons has requested. But this is the translation services' problem, rather than yours. You have every right to make that demand as forcefully as you have. I will ask the clerk to intervene. We have copies of the blues, but the translated versions should have been distributed before now. I fully agree with you and we will be passing on that message to the appropriate people. Thank you.

Although we have those documents here today, we did receive them late and that is simply unacceptable. On the Committee's behalf, I will speak to the appropriate authorities at the House of Commons and make it clear to them that this simply is not acceptable.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): You need the Committee's support; I believe you already have it.

The Chairman: No, I have it.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Look this isn't the first time this has happened, Mr. Lincoln, and it's really unfortunate. We have been saying the same thing since 1993. There is a fundamental issue involved here: we have two official languages in this country and we have to be able to work in our own language.

Of course, I can read English. No one would mistake me for a unilingual Francophone. But it is a lot more tiring to work in another language; it requires more effort. It is more difficult to grasp the subtleties, particularly when you're reading legal texts in a language other than your mother tongue.

Although we have heard plenty of excuses since the beginning of the 36th Parliament, but rather than improving, the situation only gets worse. Yet we had pretty well reached cruising speed during the 35th Parliament. Colleagues sitting on other committees told me that time and time again, they have had to demand documents in French, even though they are mandatory. It is simply disgraceful.

Again this morning, at a meeting of the Sub-committee on sport, a senior official from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade tabled a text in English only. It's just unacceptable. I hope this message will be passed on not only to the appropriate authorities, but also to the Prime Minister, so that he is aware that we are being treated like second class citizens.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, I hear you and I believe you are expressing the views of every member of this committee. I will convey that message with the same vigour to the appropriate authorities.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I will send you a copy of my letter.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Although I may not always agree with what Ms. Tremblay says, I must admit she has a very good point here. As time wears on, you have to wonder if there's not something lacking here. It's not enough to complain and ask that more attention be paid to this problem.

Once we have completed this exercise, perhaps we should sit down and review collectively—or at least in Committee—how this is done. It would help me to understand what the process is, what the deadlines are, whether there's a lack of resources somewhere and how we can deal with this problem. It's quite wearing in the long run. It's tiresome and it's unhealthy.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, those are the very points I will raise in my letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons. I will ask him what the current process is and make it clear to him that the current situation is completely unacceptable. I will tell him that the Committee wants to be sure we have the needed resources to avoid any repetition of the problem and I will ask him what steps he intends to take. We must ask that specific action be taken immediately. My letter will certainly help to make people aware of the problem, but we also have to demand that corrective measures be taken.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: I will be able to state with complete assurance that this request comes from both sides of the House. I will be sending all of you a copy of my letter, that I intend to draft with the utmost...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

• 1120

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that a copy be sent to the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The Chairman: We will now move on to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-29. I would first like to ask senior officials from the department to introduce themselves and to tell us what their specific duties are.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay (Executive Director, Parks Canada (Quebec)): My name is Laurent Tremblay, and I am Executive Director of Parks Canada in Quebec.

Ms. Wendy Bergeron (Director of Human Resources, Parks Canada): Wendy Bergeron, Director of Human Resources, Parks Canada.

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada): I'm Tom Lee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Henry Schultz (legal advisor, Department of Justice): Henry Schultz, lawyer with the Department of Justice and

[English]

principal legal adviser to Parks Canada on the agency.

Mr. Mike Fay (Director, Business Planning, Parks Canada): I'm Mike Fay, director of business planning, Parks Canada.

The Chairman: Before we start the proceedings, for the benefit of those members who may not have been through a clause-by-clause study before, I want to sort of set the scene for you so that it avoids questions afterwards and misunderstandings.

We are going to proceed clause by clause in sequence, but the preamble comes last. We're not going review the preamble until all the clauses have been examined. If a clause has been agreed to, we cannot come back on it without the unanimous consent of the committee. So if you want to reopen a clause that has been agreed to, you have to get unanimous consent from all the members.

Secondly, if there's a matter that has been discussed and agreed to or amended, the same matter obviously gets resolved the same way if the same question comes again in another clause.

[Translation]

If we pass an amendment and the same wording appears further on in another clause, the previously adopted provisions will apply. In other words, the previous decision will apply to any clauses that follow.

[English]

If you have any questions on procedure, please....

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Dupuis, that some of you may know, is our legislative clerk who will be advising us today on matters of procedure and legal issues.

Yes, Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, if we decide to change the name of the Agency, for example, do we have to vote every time the name appears or will the new name apply throughout mutatis mutandis?

The Chairman: Yes, it will apply mutatis mutandis. In other words, if we reject the current name in one of the early amendments, it will be rejected throughout the Bill. Is that clear?

[English]

Is that clear to all members? We'll proceed.

By the way, have you received a bundle of amendments? Because certain amendments were received late, the up-to-date bundle is the one that was given to you today.

[Translation]

The most recent bundle is the one that was given to you today. When I referred to proposed amendments, I will mention the clause and page number. For example, I will refer to REF-2, which means the second amendment proposed by the Reform party, and I will say that it appears on page 1. This will help you to follow in your bundle of amendments and to know exactly where we are,

[English]

which page is which, because when we get halfway through, it gets very confusing.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Chairman, I have one quick question. When we sent these amendments to the legal department, they did the amendments as prescribed, but on the French side they didn't do any of the translation. For example, “Agency” means the Parks Canada Agency.

[Translation]

In the French version, the English wording also appears: «"Agency" means the Parks Canada Agency». This does not seem to have been translated.

• 1125

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's the same thing for amendments PC-2, REF-2 and NDP-2. It says: "That Bill C-29, in Clause 2, be amended, in the English version only..." If the name change is in English, it has to change in French.

The Chairman: Yes, we agree on that. The clerk tells me that when we pass or negatize a clause, the translation is done automatically and the other version is amended to ensure that the two jibe. In any case, this should have been translated.

Are there any further questions? If not, we can begin.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have appeared as a witness, as a backbencher M.P., during clause-by-clause consideration. Since some of us are novices, I hope you will give us the time we need to do our work properly. We don't want things to move so quickly that we don't even know where we are.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, formalism is not my thing. I give people an opportunity to express their views. If we are able to reach a consensus, we will be able to get the job done in a much more constructive fashion. That has always been my policy. So I will give everybody a chance to speak.

(Clause 2—Definitions)

[English]

The Chairman: I understand there's a Reform amendment from before to clause 2. That's on page 1.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Sorry. What?

The Chairman: You have to move your amendment, Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Oh, I thought that would be automatic.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: So moved.

The Chairman: No, no. Could you speak...?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: There's also an amendment to clause 1. Are we skipping over that?

The Chairman: No. That is the title of the act. We'll come to it after.

Just to make it quite clear, pursuant to Standing Order 75.1, consideration of the preamble in clause 1 is postponed. We will take the preamble at the end and then the title of the act, so we'll start with clause 2.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What happens in a case like this, where the Reform Party, Conservative Party and NDP are all moving the same amendments? Who is supposed to take the floor? Is it always the Reform Party?

The Chairman: Well, since the Reform Party forms the official opposition, let's start with them.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: But he doesn't seem to know what to do. Someone should explain the process to him.

The Chairman: The Reform Party was first to move the amendment and accordingly we will give its spokesperson precedence. Mr. Pankiw,

[English]

you're moving the amendment. Could you put on record what the amendment is?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay. It's that Bill C-29, clause 2, be amended, in the English version only, by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:

“Agency” means the Parks Canada Agency.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I understand the Conservative Party and NDP have the same amendment.

[English]

Mr. Pankiw, just to put it on the record, the amendment won't be in the English version only. It will also apply

[Translation]

to the French version.

• 1130

[English]

So the amendment is moved that it doesn't need any seconding in committee. I need discussion.

[Translation]

A hon. member: What do you have in French?

The Chairman: Can we ask Mr. Schultz what the name would be in French if we opt for "Parks Canada Agency" in English?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: It would be "L'Agence Parcs Canada".

The Chairman: "L'Agence Parcs Canada". Thank you.

[English]

Is there any discussion? Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Not on that topic, Mr. Chairman, but on the whole idea of putting this amendment forward, it's just because Parks Canada is synonymous with what it is. People know it across the country as Parks Canada, and that's why we put this motion forth, because it's so simple and it would prevent any misinterpretation or it would make the transfer much more fluid.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: The other amendments fall automatically.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes. That's fine.

[English]

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 3—Establishment)

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: This is a consequential amendment to Clause 2.

The Chairman: Clause 3 would read as follows:

[English]

There is hereby established a body corporate to be called Parks Canada Agency

[Translation]

In French, it would be "l'Agence Parcs Canada".

[English]

Otherwise, the clause stays the same.

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4—Minister responsible)

The Chairman: On clause 4, we have amendment PC-4, on page 7 of your bundle.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: We move that Bill C-29 in clause 4 be amended by replacing line 26 on page 4 with the following:

general or special direction, consistent with the purposes of this Act, given by the

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why this is being added. It seems completely redundant since subclause 4 (2) is very clear:

"(2) The Agency shall comply with any general or special direction given by the Minister with references to the carrying out of its responsibilities."

It seems to me the Minister is unlikely to give directions that are inconsistent with the Agency's mission. So, as far as I'm concerned, this is completely redundant and doesn't need to be in the Bill. It adds absolutely nothing in terms of clarifying the legislation. That's my view.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I concur with Madam Tremblay.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, the reason for our amendment is so that there's some consistency, and to remove some of the potential for doubt that might cause legal problems or court problems in the future.

• 1135

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I wonder if we could ask Mr. Schultz for his opinion. Perhaps he'd be the one to answer the question.

The Chairman: On the amendment?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Is it redundant or does it in fact clarify things a little better?

Mr. Henry Schultz: My advice, actually, is that it wouldn't clarify, and it is unduly redundant. It would go without saying under common law that any decision by the minister would have to be consistent with the purposes of this act.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: NDP-4 falls the same way.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5—Exercise of powers conferred on Minister)

The Chairman: I will now call amendment PC-5 on page 9. Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, we move to amend Bill C-29 by replacing line 33 on page 4 with the following:

Minister that is consistent with the purpose of this Act, the Agency may exercise the powers

The Chairman: Do you want to explain your amendment or are you satisfied that it reads by itself?

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, it flows with the amendment that just came forth.

The Chairman: Yes, I think there's a redundancy there.

Mr. Mark Muise: I understand.

The Chairman: Because if we voted clause 4, if you agree, Mr. Muise, then the amendment to clause 5 would fall away.

Mr. Mark Muise: Correct.

The Chairman: Just for the record, I'm going to call a vote on clause 5.

Mr. Mark Muise: Please do.

The Chairman: I will call a vote on the amendment to clause 5 by Mr. Muise.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: I will now call clause 5 as it reads.

Mr. John Godfrey: No, you have a technical amendment.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Is there an NDP-5 as well?

The Chairman: No, NDP-5 falls away. It's exactly the same.

Mr. John Godfrey: Fine.

Then I'd like to move to amend clause 5 by replacing, in the English version, line 36 on page 4 with the following:

and other protected heritage areas and heritage

The rationale is that it provides concordance with the French version, because we've changed it from “or” to “and”. It clarifies that the agency's exercise of ministerial power applies to everything referenced in that clause—national parks, national historic sites, other protected heritage areas and heritage protection programs. It's not a choice; it's all-inclusive.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I wondering why you are amending only the English version. Where is this in the French version?

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, the reason is that...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: So, you are leaving us a choice. We are keeping "under any act or regulation". Shouldn't the "or" be replaced by "and"? Ah, now I understand. It refers to the word "programs" that appears further on in the text, where it says "and Heritage Protection programs". That's fine.

The Chairman: Yes, that's it.

[English]

You've heard the amendment. It's just to change the word “or” to “and”.

[Translation]

The French version already reads that way.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

• 1140

The Chairman: I will now call a new clause 5.1, amendment C-2 on page 13. Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I move that Bill C-29 be further amended by adding after line 13 on page 5 the following:

A direction by the Minister referred to in sections 4 and 5 is not a statutory instrument for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.

The Chairman: Would you like Mr. Schultz to define it for us?

Mr. John Godfrey: I would love Mr. Schultz to do that.

The Chairman: Mr. Schultz, I think the members would really like to know what this is all about.

Mr. Henry Schultz: The purpose of this amendment, which was excluded by oversight, is to make it clear that internal directions that the minister gives just to the agency and to employees of the agency, under sections 4 and 5, cannot be read as statutory instruments of a kind that could be regularly reviewed under section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Section 19 provides that effectively the joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations reviews any statutory instruments under that act. This is just making it clear that a direction given by the minister simply to the agency or to its employees, under 4 and 5, is not the sort of direction that the joint committee would regularly review.

I should stress that directions given by the minister under 4 and 5 would not be given to persons outside. They would not directly affect persons outside the agency, and as a result they're more instruments of internal governance. They're not the sort of instrument that the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations regularly reviews.

The Chairman: Are there any questions? Monsieur Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's more a question of format, Mr. Chairman, than content. We already have a clause 5 that contains numbered paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). The proposal is to add a clause 5.1, with no brackets. Do you think we could have numbering...

The Chairman: When the final bill is drafted, once the amendments have been introduced, everything will be automatically repaginated and renumbered.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You're saying that clauses will be renumbered where they need to be. Fine.

The Chairman: At this point, the numbering applies only to the amendments.

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Couldn't we use a different expression, rather than adding a clause? As I understand it, this refers to statutory instruments to be established by the Agency, but that should not be interpreted as being statutory instruments within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.

You are really adding this just to avoid confusion. The expression "statutory instruments" should not be interpreted within the meaning of the Act. Could we not just use another expression, rather than adding this?

Mr. Henry Schultz: That would be difficult, because the terms "textes réglementaires" and "statutory instruments" are what is known in English as defined terms, within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It would be easier to do that, though.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Yes, it would be.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Fine.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? Can we call the vote on the amendment?

I am calling the vote on amendment C-2, which is numbered for the time being as 5.1, but only temporarily.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(On clause 6—Responsibilities—subject matter)

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): I move that Bill C-29 in clause 6 be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 5 with the following:

6.(1) The Agency shall implement the operational policies and guidelines of the Government of Canada listed in Part 3 of the schedule that relate to national parks,

• 1145

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The French version is causing me some difficulty, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I don't see what this adds and at the same time, it doesn't make much sense. You can't implement guidelines. As the word suggests, they are there to provide guidance, but they cannot actually be put into effect. So, that being the case, we shouldn't...

This is going to be added to the paragraph that starts "The Agency shall ensure that there are long term plans in place...". Putting in place and implementing are pretty much the same. Ah, no; it's above that. I really don't see what it adds to include "shall implement the operational policies of the government of Canada".

It also says: "listed in Part 3 of the schedule...". What schedule are they referring to? If they're referring to the schedule in the Bill, it doesn't have a Part 3. It only has Parts 1 and 2. It's very confusing. What Part 3 are they talking about? I don't think it adds anything.

The Chairman: Is there any other comments?

[English]

Mr. Shultz, would you like to comment?

Mr. Henry Schultz: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that part 1 contains a list of acts of Parliament and of regulations made under acts of Parliament that are really in the nature of laws of the country.

What we're speaking of here are operational policies and guidelines, which are simply that. They are internal rules of adminstration to Parks Canada.

The act already clearly provides that the chief executive officer is responsible for preparing those same guidelines for the minister's approval under subsection 12.(3). It seems a bit inappropriate to list in a schedule that contains laws, either statutory or regulatory, references to policies that, in the end, are simply internal administrative directives.

Admittedly, these are directives of a higher order. They require the minister's approval, and that requirement is clearly set out in the act itself.

The Chairman: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I know that the concern expressed by some of the witnesses who appeared was that the Agency should be able to develop its own policies, regardless of the direction taken by the government. But is it really necessary to set this out in the legislation? It seems to me we are almost accusing the Agency on the basis of its supposed intentions, as if we already knew that it would not be implementing government policy. It sounds almost as though we suspected that once its autonomy is guaranteed, to throw government policy and ministerial advice out the window and do exactly what it wants.

My view is that the current wording provides an appropriate framework for the Agency and forces it to take government policies into account—unless I'm mistaken or have misread this clause. Those policies have to be based on the ones that are contained in the big binder tabled in the House of Commons. The Agency has to organize major forums every two years in order to consult people. It will always have to face these groups and, ultimately, be accountable to them.

Since certain mechanisms are already provided for to ensure the Agency does consult with these groups, if they believe the Agency is not doing a good job, they will say so publicly and the Act will be amended. But to actually make provisions for this in advance is tantamount to saying that the Agency will not do a good job, as if we were sure it couldn't. I must say I can't really go along with that.

The Chairman: Ms. Angela Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I would just like to point out that I am replacing Mr. Laliberte. These are his amendments I am moving. As a result, it's a little difficult for me to debate them.

I must say that I don't completely agree with Ms. Tremblay. Having worked for Parks Canada, I am not prepared to completely trust the Agency and to assume that our parks will be as well-preserved as they have been in the past. That's why I say we have to be very careful and ensure that the legislation really helps to protect the gains we've made.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In that case, what we should say is: "The Agency shall implement the policies, taking into account the government's guidelines." If we added "taking into account the government's guidelines", which we can certainly do, that might be one possible solution.

• 1150

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? If not, I'll call for the vote.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: I will now call amendment PC6 on page 15 in your bundle of amendments.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, there's a slight error in the document you have in front of you. It should read as follows:

That Bill C-29, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 5 with the following:

“long-term plans in place for maintaining and establishing”

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's the NDP amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: It's the same as NDP7. Maybe it would be simpler if you withdrew your amendment with consent and then we'll proceed with NDP7, which is the same.

Mr. Mark Muise: Correct.

The Chairman: I think it would make it much simpler.

Mr. Mark Muise: Certainly, yes it would.

The Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent for Mr. Muise to withdraw his amendment, PC6?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: The amendment is withdrawn. So we'll consider NDP7 on page 16.

Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29, in clause 6, be amended (a) by replacing line 21 on page 5 with the following:

long-term plans in place for maintaining and establishing

(b) by replacing line 23 on page 5 with the following:

sites and marine conservation areas and other heritage areas.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Mark Muise: I have a quick question, Mr. Chairman, just for clarification. Are those two, (a) and (b), in the same amendment?

The Chairman: That's one amendment, yes.

Are there any comments?

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm wondering if “maintaining” is an appropriate concept to have in this particular part of the legislation or whether that comes somewhere else. The whole maintenance of the system is part of the overall mandate of Parks Canada. Perhaps we could ask the officials to comment on this.

Mr. Tom Lee: There are two different elements contained here.

This clause is intended to refer to having a long-range plan in place for new parks or sites. The maintenance is actually captured in a different part of the bill, and where you would find that is in the corporate plan. That's your financial plan that enables you to carry out maintenance.

So in fact my view would be that maintenance is covered. It's covered already in the bill and it's covered in the financial aspect. The long-term plan is a physical plan that geographically describes where future parks will be. So they're two different concepts.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Muise?

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I know this is not my motion, but—

The Chairman: You're allowed to speak to it.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay. From our point of view, the maintenance is one aspect, but the other aspect is the establishment. Our party has always said we should finish the Parks Canada system that has been in the works for some time. The reason for putting that motion forward was to give further direction or more stringent guidelines to establishing, meaning establish it and finish it.

• 1155

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I believe the intent of the amendment is good; I just think it's not in the appropriate spot.

Obviously the maintenance is a critical role, but if you read the entire paragraph, it doesn't fall in with the actual theme of the paragraph, or what it's trying to state—that is, the future of parks. It deals with parks and not the maintenance of parks.

I think it's just in an inappropriate spot.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, is there anything you'd like to add by way of comment or explanation?

Mr. Tom Lee: Perhaps in response to Mr. Muise, the issue of timing, of when you're going to complete the parks system and so on, is traditionally an item that the government of the day, with the resources it has available, decides—for example, whether it's going to create five parks this year, or ten, or whether the marine conservation system should be completed in five years.

A variety of factors influence that, so it's very difficult to conceive of us legislating that requirement. It's a policy and political judgment of the day.

The Chairman: By the way, there's a second part to this amendment, if anybody wants to comment on it before we take the vote.

Have you any comments, Mr. Lee, on the second part?

Mr. Tom Lee: I would note for committee that in terms of systems plans, there are three elements that do have systems plans—the national parks system, the national historic sites system, and the national marine conservation areas system.

The modification proposed suggests that other aspects of heritage areas would have long-range systems plans when in fact they don't. For example, there is a number of historic canals in Canada, but they're designated. We wouldn't do a systems plan for that.

The clause also anticipates that at some point in time government might wish to add certain items of heritage into its portfolio. I don't know what it might be; national landmarks or something.

I guess the point is, there would be heritage areas that would not have a long-range systems plan in the way they're defined. So it would be my feeling that we shouldn't make it that all-inclusive, but definitely for the three areas mentioned. Those are covered by the act as it's written.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chairman: I will now call NDP-8. Madam Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move to amend Bill C-29 in clause 6 by replacing line 28 on page 5 with the following:

national historic sites, to ensure the completion of Canada's national parks, national historic sites and related heritage systems.

The Chairman: Would you like to speak to it at all, Ms. Vautour?

Ms. Angela Vautour: I guess this would be to ensure the completion of the national and historical sites.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think there's something qualitatively different about the national parks and marine conservation areas, where we've established there's a finite number of systems we're trying to have represented, both in the national parks system and in marine conservation areas, whereas with heritage sites, as time passes by, there'll be more of them. You can't ever complete them. Just by logic and definition, they're always a work in progress.

The Chairman: Are you amending the amendment?

Mr. John Godfrey: No, I'm speaking against it, because I find this illogical. You can't complete the historic sites system ever—unless we hit an asteroid.

• 1200

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I've seen that movie too.

An hon. member: That, too, would add to it.

Mr. John Godfrey: That would be an historic site, if that hit us.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 6 to 9 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 10—Appointment)

The Chairman: There's an amendment to clause number 10—Reform amendment number 4, page 18, Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amendment is that Bill C-29, in clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 7 with the following: “which term shall not be renewed”.

If you could just give me a minute, I'm not sure if they caught the gist of what I wanted. Actually what I had asked the counsel to draft was a clause that would not allow the executive officer to be reappointed more than once. The way this reads, he would only be allowed to serve one term, whereas I was proposing he would be allowed to serve a second term, but that would be the limit. The reason for that is so that someone doesn't become so entrenched as executive officer as to become a demagogue.

Should I propose a rewording of that?

The Chairman: Mr. Pankiw, was it your intention to say that he can be renewed for just one more term?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: That's right.

The Chairman: I would suggest to you, if the members will agree, so that you get a chance to present your amendment, that it would read “which term may be renewed for one further term”. In other words, we would delete “or more”.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Right. That's acceptable.

The Chairman: Your amendment would be to delete in line 1 of page 7 of the act the words “or more”.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Correct.

The Chairman: Without going into procedures, do we have unanimous consent to consider Mr. Pankiw's amendment as reading instead of what is that bundle, the deletion of the words “or more” on line 1 of page 7 in clause 10?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion? Mr. Pankiw moves that renewal be only for one term.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against this amendment, even the one where we would allow for one renewal, if you will.

This person, whoever he or she may be, will be at pleasure, which means there are no set terms. If, for whatever reason, the pleasure should cease in the sense that there were problems, and the government of the day felt that there would need to be a change, that change would occur.

On the other hand, if indeed things are going smoothly, if things are going well, and if you don't have a demagogue but have someone in there who's been well chosen, has the respect of the employees, has the respect of whatever advisory bodies may go, and there's a keen desire on all parties to continue, then the current legislation would allow that.

That allows total flexibility, as opposed to imposing a restriction that I don't believe is necessary at all, because the flexibility to remove the director would be in the act. I don't think this is adding flexibility to an act; it is restricting it needlessly.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I concur with Mr. Bélanger. That's what I wanted to say.

• 1205

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to)

(On clause 12—Consultation)

The Chairman: I will now call the amendment to clause 12, NDP-7.2 on page 18.1.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29 in clause 12 be amended by deleting lines 25 to 31.

I don't know if I need to explain that. Further on we have something that would replace this paragraph, which is on page 19.1.

The Chairman: I take it that the intent of the amendment is to delete subclause 12.(4). Is that correct?

Ms. Angela Vautour: Yes, and the reason for that is that certain organizations would rather see a better type of consultation or a more independent body that would be advising before decisions are made. That is why page 19.1 comes afterwards.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the suggestion is to delete subclause 12(5), which reads as follows:

"(5) The Chief Executive Officer may delegate to any persons any power, duty or function conferred on the Chief Executive Officer under this Act or any other Act or regulation."

The Chairman: No, the amendment involves replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 7 with the following:

"Executive Officer shall consult with persons and organis-"

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Vautour said she would like to move an amendment later to propose that this system be replaced by an advisory committee.

[English]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment to clause 12 presented by the NDP, number 7.2? If not, I will call the vote on NDP-7.2?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: I will now call PC amendment number 7 to clause 12 on page 19.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I wish to withdraw my amendment, the PC-7 on page 19.

(Clause 12 agreed to)

The Chairman: I will now call a new clause, which, for the purposes of this exercise, is labelled clause 12.1. This is NDP number 7.2(a) on page 19.1.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29 be amended by adding after line 35 on page 7 the following new clause with the marginal note “Consultation”:

12.(1) The Minister shall—

The Chairman: You don't have to read all of it. You can just tell us the gist of it, what you want to change.

Ms. Angela Vautour: What it basically would be is an independent body that would be doing the consultations, making the recommendations. They'd be taken seriously and consulted with. That is what it is in general.

The Chairman: Is there any comment or discussion on this?

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm curious from an organizational point of view what this would do to the lines of responsibility and accountability. If you insert this mechanism, does that run the risk of letting the minister and indeed the chief executive officer off the hook? Without this there is a direct line of responsibility. With this there's the insertion of another body that can potentially take the heat.

Perhaps the assistant deputy minister could help us with this.

Mr. Tom Lee: There are two items involved in this amendment. One is a structural question. The way the legislation has been designed is to have a very streamlined order of accountability. One of the key elements of that is not to insert any type of a body between the minister and the chief executive officer. That relationship is very clear, and they're not being modified in any way. The idea is chief executive officer to minister to Parliament, straightforward and simple.

• 1210

The other element that comes into this, and I believe we may have discussed this earlier in the public discussion we had on the types of consultation, there were mixed views on what type of form might work best. Obviously, one of those used was an advisory committee and then it was brought forth. There are other viewpoints people suggested that an advisory committee has struck.... They wouldn't be represented on it. They couldn't have a big enough advisory committee to represent the range of constituents that Parks Canada has.

So the proposal that was brought forth was the idea of a biannual forum at which people who are close and knowledgeable about the program could be consulted, but also where the Canadian public in a more general sense might also be able to offer their views. So that's the background on why the proposal is structured the way it is in the legislation.

The Chairman: Madam Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: To add to the argument, in the way it is set up now in the bill the chief executive officer shall hold public forums or otherwise consult with persons, which to me makes it very weak by having another body. Perhaps there are other places we can place this body. I don't know if you have any suggestions, if there is a way. This is something that came up very often by different organizations. They feel there is a need for this body to advise, not necessarily to be in the way, but mostly on the side and there to advise and make sure that these public forums are happening.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, would you comment? I think Mrs. Vautour was asking a question. Is there any other place that you see for such a body?

Mr. Tom Lee: I don't think it would matter where you place it. If it had the same effect, if it had the effect of providing interference in that direct-line responsibility, then it wouldn't matter where it was placed. So I don't have a suggestion on that, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendment negatived)

(On clause 13—Personnel)

The Chairman: I will now call clause 13, the amendment NDP-8.2.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29 in clause 13 be amended by adding after line 45 on page 7 the following:

(1.1) Notwithstanding any other other provision, no employee of the Agency shall be disciplined or terminated solely by reason of any findings resulting from research carried out by the employee in the course of his or her employment with the agency or the making public of those findings.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, could you speak to your amendment and justify it?

Mr. Mark Muise: The whistle-blower protection....

Ms. Angela Vautour: Yes, this is mostly the whistle-blower protection. It is protecting the environment. We just want to make sure the employees are not being disciplined for being truthful.

Mr. Mark Muise: We're making basically the same amendment except we'd put it somewhere else. The reason we're doing this is if there's a certain species that is in danger of extinction or something along those lines, employees who have done this research and find this problem can bring it out to make people aware of the problem without any fear of reprimand or losing their jobs. That's where we're coming from.

• 1215

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Again, I don't disagree to a certain extent with the intent of the amendment, but it doesn't clearly state what was just defined there. It's very vague and it's wide open. If in fact there is discussion on anything from strategic plans or operational reviews or anything in that regard, any time there would be an opportunity to put the Canadian Parks Agency in compromise, there would be no ability for anybody to reprimand that individual in that case.

I think what we are dealing with there—and I would certainly appreciate a legal perspective on it—are some basic labour laws. I think they are already in place. As I said, I certainly don't disagree with the intent if in fact there was something that was going to be detrimental to the environment and somebody was reprimanded for bringing that up. But again, I think these are basic labour law issues and certainly covered under that aspect. So I would be opposed to the amendment as it stands.

The Chairman: Mr. Schultz.

Mr. Henry Schultz: If I can presume to comment, indeed provisions like this are obviously well-intentioned, but they do cut both ways.

Yes, I would suggest the wording is quite vague and makes it difficult for the agency to limit its employees in divulging secrets or research done on behalf of the agency.

Mr. Lee has pointed out that the public can always make use of the Access to Information Act to obtain information that the agency has created, but I would suggest that this is unduly restrictive on the part of the employer.

Mr. John Godfrey: The principle here goes much beyond anything that applies to Parks Canada because it would apply to trade negotiations, defence secrets, almost any department of government where an employee took it upon himself or herself to go public.

What we would want to know is whether such a protection or principle applies anywhere else in government. What is the larger system view of this kind of suggestion?

Mr. Tom Lee: As I read the clause, the clause works deviously, so I don't see it applying at all to any other parts of government.

When one looks at what could happen under here, first of all, recognizing that governments and public servants should be accountable for information they have and have access, have that information in the public domain, we have that set of laws.

The thing that happens under here and would apply throughout other parts of government is this: If an employee did bad work, bad research, for example, there would probably be some way of disciplining that person, but that wouldn't be permitted with this clause, as I read it; you wouldn't do that.

The other thing is, if an employee in carrying out his or her duties is acting in a way to subvert a minister or an activity of the agency, then there has to be a mechanism for dealing with that. Release of information at a particular point in time may be deliberately done by a person to meet their own personal objectives or their own personal interests. But that isn't the people they're serving; it's the bigger Canadian public.

So Mr. Godfrey, I really have trouble thinking of a clause like that working at all in government or in any other government department.

Ms. Angela Vautour: What we are talking about here is research. For instance, say there was research done on Banff and it was shown that there should be no more commercialization in Banff, and an employee did come out with this. What protection is there for that employee if that employee came out with that information?

• 1220

Mr. Tom Lee: My response to that is I would expect my employees to come out with that information. If I paid for grizzly bear research in Banff, if the organization or the government paid for it, and they found that grizzly bears are threatened, then my expectation is that information would be made public. The employee is permitted to talk about it; there are no constraints put on them.

I recognize that scientists don't always say the same thing about the same topic, but if it is good research and if that opinion or the research of that employee is upheld by his or her peers, then the agency would be expected to do something about grizzly bears. To me that's the expected behaviour of the public service and the way it should work.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I would ask our legal clerk if he's in agreement with Mr. Schultz.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Dupuis (legislative clerk): I really can't answer that, because I did not draft the amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Just for the record, the legislative clerk is not here to speak to the actual wording of the clause by clause but rather how we're going to handle it procedurally. Just so that we're clear on further questions to the legislative clerk.

The Chairman: I wanted to ask Mr. Lee about something. There will be a charter relating to the relationship between the executive and the employees. Is that the place where the relationship with employees will be treated?

Mr. Tom Lee: It would be. I appreciate very much your reminding me of that. That is where that relationship would be treated and it would be a good place to describe something of this nature. It doesn't just apply to scientists; it's employer-employee relationships.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of comments about Clause 13 before you put it to a vote. Since there are no amendments other than these ones, should I make my comments right away?

The Chairman: No, first we have to vote on Ms. Vautour's amendment.

[English]

Is there any further discussion regarding the amendment presented by Madame Vautour? If not, I'm going to call the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Was amendment PC-8 also defeated?

The Chairman: Yes, it's the same amendment.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question and make a comment. I am quite disappointed that the government decided not to move an amendment here. I would just like to quote the 4th recommendation presented by the Professional Institute of the Public Service when it appeared:

"Our last recommendation is that a mechanism be put in place to allow Agency employees to be transferred to the Public Service and to take part in its competitions."

According to the answers Mr. Lee sent to the clerk, everyone seems to agree. Yet it has been suggested that the transfer agreements be reached between the departments or agencies on an individual basis only, one at a time. In other words, we are going to create a lot of work that could be avoided if we simply specified here that Agency employees can take part in competitions elsewhere in the Public Service.

• 1225

I am disappointed that we didn't move such an amendment here. Perhaps we could consider doing so at report stage? I am also disappointed that the other political parties didn't propose one either. This is familiar ground for the New Democrats, and yet they did not propose an amendment. That comment certainly isn't addressed to Ms. Vautour, because she wasn't here and she actually has a pretty tough job trying to present amendments on behalf of her colleagues. That was my first comment.

Here's my second comment.

[English]

When the minister appeared, we asked if this charter, or whatever it is called, that had been negotiated with the representatives of the employees could be made public. If it has been negotiated, it should be made public. We were told at the time that they'd look into it.

I gather we're not going to see that. Is that correct?

Mr. Tom Lee: May I respond, Chairman, to the latter point?

The Chairman: There are two points there, but all right. Start with the last one.

Mr. Tom Lee: On the latter point, the charter is not completed at all yet. It's still being worked on. Only one element of it, the values and principles, has been through committee or working groups. Values and principles make up only one part of the charter document. Many elements of the charter document itself have still not been put together.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If the values and principles have been agreed upon, wouldn't it be tremendous to have that on the table? I think it would provide perhaps a whole deal of comfort that some of us may not have right now on certain aspects of this legislation.

Mr. Tom Lee: If the chair wishes, I am prepared to table those, but I'll tell you—it's just an awkward thing—they have no particular status, because I can't approve them. Only the chief executive officer can approve them, when there is an agency. But if you wish to see the work that has been done, I would be pleased to provide it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I think it would be very useful.

The Chairman: I think it would be very extremely useful to members.

Mr. Tom Lee: Okay. We'll get that to you today.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can you respond on the first point?

The Chairman: The first point was about changing the legislation to include the suggestion made by PIPS.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: On recommendation 4, which we all agree with.

Mr. Tom Lee: Let me describe what will happen within the agency environment. The first point is that within the public service, any departmental competitions from any department can be made open to the broader public service, which automatically would include agencies. Those departments make up their own individual.... They operate in some general parameters, but the area of competition is distinguishable by the nature of the job that is being put out.

So any department could, in looking for people, extend their area of competition to include agencies, and in fact they do.

The second point is that in the agency environment, any employee could, as they do now, arrange transfers in and out of and between the agency and departments. So that will be possible.

The fourth point is that the agency can at any time open up its competition to other government departments.

The final element is that we can have reciprocal agreements by department, starting with the Department of Canadian Heritage.

So there are opportunities for that exchange, and they're substantive.

The reason we would not generalize it—and we went over this very quickly, but we were very thorough when we looked into this—is that when we look at that general type of openness, what would happen is that the advantages we would gain through the agency in creating a new human resource regime would in fact be lost, if not immediately, then almost immediately. They would dissipate very quickly.

• 1230

Because of the size of the public service and its own standards, the agency would gradually have to flow back into the standards of the public service and the particular regimes that are available. So they wouldn't have the type of flexibility they're looking for. So that's why we do not propose that kind of general opening.

The Chairman: Before we continue,

[Translation]

I will recognize Ms. St-Hilaire first, and you next. But before that,

[English]

there's one matter to be put before the committee members and also the officials.

We have two alternatives. We can finish at one o'clock and start again in the afternoon, but there are votes that are going to come up. So one suggestion would be to carry on until two o'clock. If members agree, we'll bring sandwiches and carry on now that we've got everybody here. Is that acceptable? Is it possible for all members so that we can carry on?

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: It's not possible for me.

A voice: Me neither.

The Chairman: So we'll adjourn at one o'clock, and then resume at 3.30.

Are there any comments following Mr. Lee's intervention?

[Translation]

Ms. Vautour et Ms. St. Hilaire.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Bélanger said earlier that we all support the recommendation made by PIPS. I just want to point out that I was not consulted and that I am therefore not prepared to support it.

The Chairman: Ms. St. Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St. Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Bélanger just presented a request with respect to that part of the charter that deals with values and principles. I do hope that information will also be tabled in French. Thank you.

The Chairman: If there are no further comments, I would like to call the vote on Clause 13.

[English]

(Clause 13 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 14 to 18 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 19—Appropriations)

The Chairman: I will now ask for amendment PC-9, which is on page 21 and deals with clause 19. Mr. Muise.

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

I move that Bill C-29, in clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 42 on page 9 with the following:

19(1) The Minister shall, not later than six months after the coming into force of section 3, introduce in the House of Commons a bill setting out a specified amount of money to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for an unspecified period of time and that provides for the operational and capital expenditures of the Agency, provided that the Minister's advice to the Governor General to recommend that bill to the House of Commons has been accepted by the Governor General.

(2) Money may be appropriated by Parliament from time to time by way of a vote in an appropriation Act or any other Act of Parliament, for the period that may be specified in this Act, providing financial assistance to the Agency in the form of grants and contributions.

Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to accomplish here is that I think it's important for certain funds to be appropriated to Parks Canada. For example, let's say it takes $100 million to operate Parks Canada, but they only raise 25% of that. It would be my feeling that possibly 75% should come from appropriations. Not knowing what that figure is, I wanted funds to be appropriated after the minister has made the recommendation to the Governor General, but I didn't want to restrict that number too much. I wanted to ensure that there are proper appropriations without locking the government into a situation where they have to do this even if that money is not necessary.

• 1235

The Chairman: This is a really important technical question and I would like to get Mr. Schultz, Mr. Lee, or Mr. Fay to comment on it for the benefit of the members—whichever of the officials wants to comment.

We would like to get your explanation of Mr. Muise's amendment.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Mr. Chairman, I'll open the discussion and pass it on to Mr. Fay.

I must say that on its face I find this amendment a bit confusing. Without even going into the process it addresses, one significant problem that is created is that it would only operate once. That's on its face, certainly in the English language. I imagine if you're trying to set up a system of an authority to appropriate money for the purposes of the agency, you would want it to be exercised a number of times, repeatedly.

I must say the other thing too is it introduces a complex procedure for appropriating money that I honestly haven't seen before. Subclause 19(1), though admittedly very technical in its language, is much more consistent with the standard procedures for appropriating money by Parliament for the purposes of an agency.

That's my general advice.

Mr. Fay, do you want to comment more?

Mr. Mike Fay: Maybe I'll try to address the specific point you raised concerning revenues.

In fact we do present our revenue projections to Parliament in the main estimates. Our revenue projections for 1998-99 as well as our appropriation requests were put in the main estimates, and they're before Parliament now, and this committee will in fact get a chance to see them for 1998-99. The intent is that the same thing will happen next year for that particular clause.

So your concern in terms of understanding the revenue mix between appropriations and revenues will be addressed in the current system without having to change that.

Mr. Mark Muise: That was the crux of my concern: to ensure that this is a public institution that should be funded with public funds. It was something that was difficult to explain properly, and hence your comments, but I wanted to have on the record that we want that appropriation to be done.

When I said we don't know what the difference is, I meant we know what the difference is today from the main estimates, but we don't know what it will be next year if, for example, Parks starts selling more products or services or has a souvenir line and their revenues increase. Maybe appropriations from the government could be less. I was trying to find a mix so Parks would always receive x amount from government to bring them up to their spending level.

When you have difficulty explaining something in layman's terms, I can well imagine how difficult it would be to explain in legal terms.

The Chairman: Ms. Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I would like to speak in support of this. My next one is almost the same.

What we're really worried about is that commercialization is going to take over, that we are going to maybe start wanting certain parks to be self-sufficient or almost self-sufficient, which means putting our national heritage on the line by doing this. By having a clause such as this, we're trying to prevent that. We're trying to keep some responsibility at the federal level and also stop this.

Let's face it. Banff is a good example, and we all have examples from across the country where our parks are being forced to do certain things that are really not good for the conservation of our parks, because they have to come up with revenue.

This is something that is again trying to help preserve and conserve the nature and beauty of our national parks, which is so important to all Canadians. I don't see anything in the bill where we're really protecting our parks from this being self-sufficient or almost self-sufficient.

• 1240

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, do you want to comment?

Mr. Tom Lee: I have two comments to address Mr. Muise and Madame Vautour.

I think it isn't just year by year that you will see the direction the agency will take financially. The corporate plan summary is a five-year document. There will always be before Parliament the five-year look ahead at what's going to happen. You will see in Parliament if the agency is suddenly going on a revenue spree and raising another $20 million or something. It will be there and you have every right to ask how it's going to do it and so on. That's one aspect of it.

The other aspect, which is the ecological integrity, Banff, the conservation issue, is linked to management and policy direction as much as to the budget issues. If you followed what the government has done in Banff, it's taken the policy issue and tried to get it straightened and headed in the right direction. As you may be aware, following the Banff review, the government is also committed to do a comprehensive inquiry on the ecological status of all national parks as part of its current commitment.

I guess what I'm saying is there are processes in place that will get you the financial information and there are government accountability mechanisms in place that will get you the issue of whether the parks are being damaged, overworked, destroyed, and so on. Those would be my views on the direction we should be going in.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: NDP-8.3 is different in some parts of it, but it's basically the same, so amendment NDP-8.3 falls away. I will now call clause 19.

(Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to)

(On clause 21—Establishment of New Parks and Historic Sites Account)

The Chairman: I will now call NDP-8.4 on page 21.2, an amendment to clause 21. Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29 in clause 21 be amended by replacing line 32 on page 11 with the following:

(c) to maintain or restore any national

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I was going to speak after she gave an explanation.

The Chairman: Would you like to explain the amendment, Ms. Vautour?

Ms. Angela Vautour: I would say on this one that it's to be more specific on the development of parks.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm certainly interested in hearing from our experts, but on the surface it makes good sense to me. I don't like the idea of losing the word “develop”, but I agree with the word “restore”. I think if there were any type of catastrophe or event that took place in the national park, whether it be a forest fire, a chemical spill, or any damage to an ecosystem of some kind, there should be a clear statement in here that says we're responsible for restoration and not simply maintenance and development. So I wouldn't want to see the word “develop” go, but I agree with my colleague that “restore” seems to make sense being in there.

• 1245

Ms. Angela Vautour: What you just gave is exactly the explanation I have also.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'd like to know from our friends with Parks Canada whether the word “maintenance” doesn't do the job for you. That is to say, if something goes wrong when you maintain something, you in fact take it back to where it was; you don't maintain it in the wronged state, do you? Or is there somewhere else where this is addressed? It would seem to me that maintaining means if you have a problem, you correct it.

Mr. Tom Lee: My reaction to the proposal is that it might better be dealt with in a different location. The new parks and historic sites account is intended to receive revenues from the sale of any kind of capital assets. It is intended to reimburse that back into the system, either by way of property or infrastructure.

It is not an operating account. The money for ecological restoration, and so on, is most appropriately paid out of the operating account of the organization and provided through appropriation. So that's the distinction that is being made.

I'm not objecting to the use of the word “restore”, except it doesn't apply to the specific intent of this particular account. There may be an opportunity later on to deal with “restore” on some appropriate point.

The Chairman: Could you suggest where it could be, so Ms. Vautour can feel that her intentions have been expressed?

Mr. Tom Lee: Do you want me to do that now?

The Chairman: You may as well, because then Ms. Vautour might feel much more amenable to a different position.

Mr. Tom Lee: I think it would be a bit difficult for us to find this in two minutes. Would you be prepared to bring us back?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I believe it falls directly in line with the theme of paragraph 21(3)(c), and I would support the amendment if my colleague would allow the inclusion of the word “develop” as well as “to maintain, develop or restore any national park”.

The Chairman: I'm afraid that's an amendment to the amendment. You can propose it if you want.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: It was an NDP amendment.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Do you want me to propose it?

The Chairman: No, you are proposing a subamendment, so could you just say what it really is?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I propose that clause 21 be amended, replacing line 32 on page 11 with the following:

to maintain, develop, or restore any national

The Chairman: Are you changing the order of “maintain” and “develop”, or just “to develop, maintain or restore”?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I don't believe, as I've been reading through the act, Mr. Chair, that the sequence of words necessarily gives the general priority from the ministry. So I don't know that there's any connection between priority and the sequence of the wording. I'll let it stand just the way I said it.

The Chairman: Okay, to make it clear, there's a subamendment proposed by Mr. Bonwick so that paragraph 21(3)(c) on page 11 of the act, line 32, should read:

to maintain, develop or restore any national park

Yes, Mrs. Vautour?

• 1250

Ms. Angela Vautour: I don't know if we need a legal opinion on whether there is a difference if it's “develop, maintain and restore.” I don't know if it makes a difference to have “develop” afterwards. If it doesn't, I can go ahead with it.

The Chairman: Mr. Schultz.

Mr. Henry Schultz: My considered legal opinion on this—and I say that ironically, because I really have.... I doubt it would make much difference what the order was. As long as the words are in there, I don't think it's going to.

Ms. Angela Vautour: All right.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I would like to comment on the comment Mr. Lee made earlier about this being a fund to put moneys that come from the sale, and not an operating account. I agree with what he's saying and I understand that, but if a park is razed—for example, if Banff is destroyed through some act of God—then these funds will have to come from this special fund, just the same way they would come from when you're creating a new park.

So I have to agree with Madame Vautour and Mr. Bonwick.

The Chairman: Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I recall one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee being in opposition to the word “restore”, because it presupposes that parks have been mismanaged and require restoration. I concur with what Mr. Godfrey said: that the word “maintain” necessarily contains the concept of restoration, because it's not possible to maintain something if you don't restore it when something goes wrong.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick and then Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I would disagree completely. Maintain at what level? If we experience any type of situation within our park system, whether it be a fire, a flood, or whatever, we can maintain a level of a flat field or we can maintain a level of a forest. To me that statement makes no sense. The maintenance of what? It doesn't clarify what we're maintaining.

What my colleague from the NDP has said is we're interested in restoring if in fact something were to take place. We're not talking about mismanagement of the park, and I don't think that was the intent. It was certainly not my intent when I made the subamendment.

The Chairman: Monsieur Bélanger and Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This whole debate may be somewhat moot in that we have not dealt with the preamble and will at the end, but the preamble states:

And Whereas it is in the national interest (...)

(g) to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of national parks...

So it's dealt with. We should point that out so the members know.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: If you actually just read a little beyond that, the category of place that is going to be developed, maintained, and/or restored is not all the national parks. It's only those ones that have not yet attained full operational status, right? That's the modifier.

So this does not apply to Banff. This does not apply to Jasper. This does not apply to any park that is fully up and running. This only applies to parks that are somehow in a state of transition. They've been sketched out, like the new park up in the territories. So I suppose they haven't even got to a point.... Well, I don't know. What's to restore? They're in transition.

This is a very special category.

Ms. Angela Vautour: What's to maintain?

Mr. John Godfrey: I guess the implication is you keep it going until you get it to operational status, when it will be taken over by another budget. So, for the half-finished parks, if something goes wrong, you might want to use the money for restoring the half-finished part, I guess. But it's a very specific category.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I would agree and disagree. It's very specific, yet it's up to the complete discretion.... Again, to what level do we restore? We're debating a word here. It's already in the preamble, but we're debating a word here. Do we want to restore if something takes place? It's that simple, whether it's future or existing. If in fact we are in the process of creating a new park and something takes place....

Again, it's a word, and I see us spending a whole bunch of time on it when it just makes good sense.

The Chairman: We are going to debate this forever.

Mr. Muise, Ms. Vautour, then Mr. Lee, and then we'll just have to come to a decision; otherwise we'll be here all day.

Mr. Mark Muise: I have two things. Firstly, I can maintain my house very well, but if it burns, I have to restore it. Secondly, if it's debated—

Mr. John Godfrey: Even if it's half-built?

Mr. Mark Muise: Correct.

• 1255

The Chairman: One at a time, please.

Mr. Mark Muise: If it's taken care of in the preamble, but we're only debating the preamble at the very end, it is very possible that it's not in the act if we choose to leave the preamble as a preamble and not put it in as part of the act. So we either have to deal with it now or deal with the preamble now.

The Chairman: Madam Vautour, then Madam St-Hilaire.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Actually, I was going to say the same thing about the preamble. The preamble at this point is not in the act. I can't see the harm in wanting to have “restore” there. Why are we so afraid to want to restore?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. St. Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St. Hilaire: Yes, I think we can be somewhat flexible here. Subclause 21(3) says: "amounts may, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, be paid out of the New Parks Historic Sites Account..."

As far as I'm concerned, we can say all three and show an openness to various points of view, by specifically mentioning the words "restore, develop or maintain" a national park.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, you want to comment.

Mr. Tom Lee: If I understand the amendment that was discussed in (c), it reads something to the effect of “to maintain, develop or restore”.

My comment was going to be that this would work if it stayed in (c), on the understanding that.... Because there is a restoration need when we're establishing new parks. Some of the land we're buying on the Gulf Islands for a new park is old farms and so on, and gradually we will restore that to its natural condition.

The same thing will occur on historic sites. Almost every time you start a historic site, you have to start with restoration.

So if it stays in (c), it works with the intent of the bill.

The Chairman: We seem to be getting to a consensus now.

I will repeat Mr. Bonwick's subamendment, which was “to maintain, develop or restore”—right?—under paragraph 21(3)(c). I will now call for the vote on Mr. Bonwick's subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to)

The Chairman: I will now call the amendment as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

(Clause 21 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 22 to 31 inclusive agreed to)

The Chairman: When we resume, members, we'll start with clause 32.

I appreciate the cooperation of both members and officials. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.