CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 12, 1998

• 1540

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is now resuming its clause by clause consideration of Bill C-29.

[English]

We resume this session of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.

[Translation]

We were at clause 32.

[English]

We had reached clause 32.

Just before we start, I want to make two points.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, a few other members and myself discussed the availability of the texts in both official languages and the fact that the translation services were behind. The clerk has told me that the problem was not with the translation services, but rather with his own office. Lacking adequate resources and given his enormous workload, he was unable to ensure that the translation get back to us in time. He could perhaps give you an explanation. Given that the situation is slightly different from that which we had believed, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to write to the House authorities, contrary to what we had thought of doing.

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee (Normand Radford): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to clarify for the translation this morning that it's normally just a question of putting these briefs into a translation mechanism. They take about two or three weeks. On that one, because it's legislation, I should have highlighted it and it would have gone quicker. I didn't do that. It was simply an oversight on my part and I apologize for that.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We are in a little bit of a bind here, and if there are any complaints to be made, they should put to the clerk. I won't be writing any letter for the time being, but if you believe that it would be appropriate to pursue this matter further in a general way or if a similar situation were to arise in the future, I would be perfectly prepared to write to the House authorities.

[English]

Secondly,

[Translation]

concerning amendment REF-2, from the Reform Party,

[English]

number one, I don't want to reopen it, but the official translators have made a point to us that I think must be referred to you.

If you look at amendment REF-2, page 1, the first one,

[Translation]

it was drafted in English only and was not translated. There is only one change being moved here, and it pertains to line 5 of the English version. The Reform Party thought that the French version at clause 2 of the bill alluded to the Parks Canada Agency created in clause 3. They believed that it was the correct translation of “Parks Canada”, that has been used up until now. We did not want to discuss a technical issue. But, naturally, it is up to the committee to decide if this morning's decision, establishing the name “Agence Parcs Canada”, still holds. Therefore, there is no problem and this is the name that will be retained. The Reform Party simply wanted to underline why it hadn't translated the amendment.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, the rules of procedure provide that when an amendment or clause is passed, unanimous consent is required to reopen the discussion. My impression, much to the contrary, is that you have unanimous consent to not revisit the issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, I certainly did not want to reopen the discussion. I am perfectly in agreement with the committee's decision. I simply wanted to explain why the official translators had not translated this first amendment. That is all.

Madam Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I don't want to start the discussion over again, but it is nevertheless rather strange.

• 1545

In the bill, we have “Agence canadienne des parcs” in the French version and “Canadian Parks Agency” in the English version, which is the same thing. However, at the present time, in French, the agency is called Parcs Canada.

A voice: We are going to change the name.

The Chairman: Everyone is in agreement. I simply wanted to bring up that point and to relay to you the information given to me.

Let us now resume our study, with clause 32.

[English]

(On clause 32—Management plans)

[Translation]

The Chairman: On page 21.3, we have amendment NDP 8.5.

[English]

Madam Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): I move that Bill C-29 in clause 32 be amended by replacing line 37 on page 14 with the following:

commemorative and ecological integrity, resource protection

We are adding the word “ecological”.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion or comment?

Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): I would just like to know why we have this proposed amendment.

Ms. Angela Vautour: What we're saying is that some historic sites have environmental values, not just commemorative values, which is why we would be adding “ecological”. Sites in heritage systems need to include specifically and in relation to the next...that's another part of it. What it does is specify “ecological” instead of just saying “integrity”, because of the ecological part in parks.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, I understand you want to make a comment.

Mr. Tom Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada): I would say that we could accept this exchange. You could read this clause as an omission. You cover historic by the commemorative integrity, but you do not cover ecological integrity in a specific way. That is a mandate under the National Parks Act, so I don't see any problem with this proposed amendment.

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll call the—

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Is that really different from resource protection?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, it has quite a different definition.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Can you elaborate on that?

Mr. Tom Lee: Resource protection is putting out fires, for example, or not putting out fires. Ecological integrity deals with keeping a natural system going. It's a proactive type of thing, where you can take action to make changes to restore the ecological integrity and so on.

The Chairman: We have heard Mr. Lee's comments and the amendment. I will now call the question.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 32 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 33—Corporate plan)

[Translation]

The Chairman: It is moved, at clause 33,

[English]

NDP-8.6, on page 21.3. Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that clause 33 of Bill C-29 be amended by replacing line 7 on page 15 with the following:

Treasury Board, table the complete corporate plan

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

We mentioned this during the debate, and it was said at the time that the corporate plan could be made available upon request and that it would likely be a rather voluminous document. The committee at the time felt it would be better to table a summary and have the plan available upon request, and I don't think we should stray from that.

• 1550

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Chairman, being that what my honourable colleague says is true, if someone wants to read a specific part of it, they can do so. So having a summary and then the other part available—I see no problem with this. I would be prepared to support that amendment.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Are there any comments from the officials?

Mr. Tom Lee: I think Mr. Bélanger has accurately reflected what we said before the committee.

The Chairman: Are we ready for—Madam Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: What are the chief incentives to get a corporate plan if we don't have it incorporated at this stage?

Mr. Tom Lee: You could simply ask for it or any part of it. It is normally the summary document at this level. That's the normal thing to do. What would traditionally happen is the members would read the summary and they would say there's an item here they really want the details on, and they would simply ask the department to provide it.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The idea is to find a compromise and to stipulate in the clause that the document will be available upon request.

The Chairman: The document is presently available upon request.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: To calm and reassure everyone, would it not be wise to reach a compromise and to set it out clearly?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Schultz, could you answer that question? Ms. Tremblay suggests that as a compromise, without affecting the spirit or the word of the law, we should or could put in there that the summary will be presented but the copy's always available on demand. Could we incorporate this in the law, or is it automatically the case? Is it redundant?

Mr. Henry Schultz (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): They wouldn't necessarily be redundant. It would be a point of clarification.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, if you want to intervene in-between, by all means do.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chair, I was going to suggest that perhaps we might want to use as a precedent the language in subclause 35(2), which talks about the report on the human resources regime. It simply says it should be made available to the public.

Mr. Henry Schultz: I'm just suggesting you could have something like that, but the corporate plan should be made available to the public on request.

Mr. Mark Muise: I don't know why the hesitation is here. If the document is going to be prepared, it's not as if we're giving all Canadians this document and there's a huge cost. This is one document or five documents that is or are tabled in the House of Commons. I just see this as another control mechanism that ensures that the act is adhered to and it would give the opportunity to members of the House to be able to see exactly what is in the document. I'd like to hear why there's some hesitation here.

The Chairman: Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There's no hesitation whatsoever in making a document available. It's a matter of printing hundreds of copies needlessly. Members of Parliament, with all due respect, receive tonnes of paper every day. Their staff receive tonnes of paper every day and quite often we don't bother going through it. That's why the usefulness of a summary where you can read it and you know therefore that you can go from the summary to access the entire report, which, by the way, I think should be available on the Internet and even save more trees that way... It's not a matter of not being available. It's a matter of being practical.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

• 1555

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, and then Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that this document would be tabled in the House. We don't need 300 or 500 copies, one for each member of Parliament; we need one tabled with the clerk in the House so it's available.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's not the way it works, though.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's not the way it works?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You also have to give it to all the members.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I believe that no one is questioning the fact that we receive a lot of paper. Perhaps we should start worrying about the ecological aspect, since we are talking about parks, and save a few trees by distributing less paper. You are already making an opening at clause 35, that states:

(2) The report prepared under subsection (1) shall be made available to the public.

But the report we are alluding to here is different. Are we suggesting that we include in subsection 33(2), the text that appears in subsection 35(2)? That compromise would resolve the problem for everyone.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We could add a new subsection 33(5).

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes. Are you in agreement?

Mr. Henry Schultz: We would repeat...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We would repeat subsection 35(2) in clause 33, and that new text could be part of subsection 33(2) or else become subsection 33(5). That would resolve the problem for everyone.

The Chairman: Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ensure that the addition being suggested here will not simply mean that the summary will be available upon request, but also that people will be able to obtain the corporate plan. We must ensure that we are not talking about the same report simply in the beginning. It is the complete corporate plan that we want. We would support Ms. Tremblay's proposal, but it must be clear that we are talking here of the corporate plan.

[English]

The Chairman: Before we get too confused, I would like to ask the officials here, surely there must be an established procedure regarding the various crown agencies. Do they provide full reports? Do they provide summaries? The CBC, the CRTC—there are so many of them. What is the regular procedure? If so, what happens if the corporate plan is subject to or involved with a cabinet decision? What is the position then? Is it modified so that the cabinet decision is excluded? Surely there must be some guidelines and procedures within the government to deal with these questions. It would be interesting to know.

Mr. Tom Lee: Mr. Chairman, this is not a fully researched response, but my understanding is that the practice is for a crown agency or agencies to provide the summary report and not undertake to provide the full report.

In undertaking to provide a full report, we would have to have a full report that excluded the items that are not available for normal public access.

The Chairman: It would be a quasi-full report, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, we would have to do that. We wouldn't have a choice.

The Chairman: I understand.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: That is the answer to the question I asked earlier. Thank you.

The Chairman: What was it?

Mr. Mark Muise: Why does there seem to be objection to tabling the full corporate report?

But thank you, Mr. Lee.

The Chairman: Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I'm actually a little bit stunned with the answer, because I would have been ready to put in a subamendment at the end of subclause 33(1) to say:

at which time the full corporate plan would be available on demand.

The Chairman: That's fine. If that is so, then I don't think it would present any problems, do you, Mr. Lee?

Mr. Tom Lee: No. That's what we're saying.

But as a clarification on process, when we prepare a plan, it's for decision. It goes to Treasury Board, and it contains items that are of a cabinet nature for decision. Those would not be available, so we would have to “clean up” the plan in that context. That's what we would do, in fact.

• 1600

The Chairman: Before we get too confused and write wrong things into the law, I suggest we stand this clause and you prepare a subamendment. Then we'll ask for consent to re-open the clause and deal with the subamendment or a different amendment that we will get the committee to agree to on unanimous consent, and then present it again, so that we are sure everybody is of the same opinion.

Do you, Mr. Muise, Madame Tremblay, Mr. Bélanger, and everybody who has raised...? Okay.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I have a question. What would be in the corporate plan that you wouldn't want to have public access to?

Mr. Tom Lee: Personnel matters, for example.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Such as...?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: “We should get rid of that director because he's so-and-so.”

The Chairman: It could be confidential cabinet information in the corporate plan that we wouldn't want released.

Anyway, with your agreement, I will stand this clause and we'll come back to it, rather than have any confusion. Okay?

Ms. Angela Vautour: I could read out the subamendment now. It's just an addition at the end of the sentence.

The Chairman: Well, if Mr. Schultz assures me he's satisfied with what Ms. Vautour is going to suggest, then we'll proceed.

Mr. Tom Lee: Could we hear the proposal?

Ms. Angela Vautour: My subamendment is subclause 33(1) as it is, and I would add at the end:

at which time a complete corporate plan would be available on demand.

The Chairman: Ms. Vautour, would you reference this to the line and everything here.

Ms. Angela Vautour: It's subclause 33(1), at the top of page 15.

We would save trees, and the information would be available.

The Chairman: Mr. Schultz, could I respectfully suggest that you have the sense of it now, and maybe there could be some legal drafting?

Mr. Henry Schultz: Yes.

The Chairman: It will have to be translated. We'll stand the clause for a short while, and when you're ready, we'll come back to it.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. It is so decided.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We will have to go and vote later on. We could perhaps come back to this after the vote.

The Chairman: Yes. Fine.

[English]

(Clause 33 allowed to stand)

The Chairman: Clauses 34, 35, and 36 have no amendments.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: No, we have an amendment at clause 36.

The Chairman: No, it is rather the addition of section 36.1.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You are right.

[English]

(Clauses 34 to 36 inclusive agreed to)

The Chairman: I will now call amendment L-1, on page 22.

Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Maybe for the members who have not been through all of the discussions throughout the hearings on this bill...

[Translation]

You will remember that at the very first meeting, we had asked that the agency be subject to the Official Languages Act. Even though the answer we were given was that that would be the case, some members and myself felt it would be worthwhile to have this stated clearly in the bill. I therefore gave notice that I would be moving an amendment to that end.

• 1605

Later on, when the minister appeared before the committee, I questioned him once again on the matter and it appeared the government was reticent to the idea of making such an amendment so as to include that in the bill. The reasons given at the time were that this is not stipulated in similar acts creating other agencies and that it would perhaps set a bad precedent. I said that if that was the case, then I wanted the government to give us a legal opinion to that effect. It was given to me at the end of the day and I am prepared to table it here for the benefit of the members of the committee.

At the meeting during which the minister appeared, he also answered my repeated questions on the matter saying that the government would perhaps be prepared to include something elsewhere in the bill. I am still waiting the hear the government's position on that. This is why, before venturing any further, I would like to know if the government or its representatives have something to say in this regard.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I come back to you, Mr. Godfrey, do you want to speak on behalf of the Minister?

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I think I do.

What's being suggested is that when we come to discuss the preamble—I realize we're dancing around here—we would replace the words:

Whereas the Government of Canada wishes to establish an Agency to provide”

The Chairman: What's the clause?

Mr. John Godfrey: If you have the bill in front of you, it's right at the top. It's line 17, the third “whereas”:

Whereas the Government of Canada wishes to establish an Agency to provide quality service to visitors

The proposal is:

Whereas the Government of Canada wishes to establish an Agency to provide quality services in both official languages to visitors

I think that's the proposal.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I have met with several lawyers since the minister's appearance before us. I asked them all the same question: what is the purpose of the preamble of an act? Our legal or legislative advisor—I do not remember which one is advising us—told me, and you will correct me if I am wrong, that the preamble's purpose is to define the main principles, the guidelines, etc., upon which the bill is based. But if what is contained in the preamble is not referred to again in the text of the act, then the former really has no value and cannot be invoked before the courts.

I would remind you of the personal experience I have encountered in parks outside Quebec. It is very unfortunate but, whenever my turn comes, the francophone ahead of me has always just picked up the very last of the pamphlets in French. This keeps happening despite the fact that we have been pointing to the problem since 1993. Therefore, I won't be satisfied with...

I believe that we must insist that it be included in the bill proper. I firmly support the request that has been made, because to my mind this is essential. Parks cannot remove themselves from official languages requirements. Parks are popular with all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

We are park lovers, but when we visit them, we want to be able to understand, in our own language, everything that is handed out or posted. If it is written into the act, then there will be an obligation to respect the Official Languages Act. It seems to me that this is an “absolute must”, as we say.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any comments from Mr. Schultz or the other officials about the case referred to here and the legal situation and so forth?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, we have some.

First of all, Madame Tremblay, I regret the experience you had, but the legal situation is not changed by this bill. As for the situation you ran across as you described it, we would be held in violation, if you like, of the Official Languages Act, if you like, for not having that material available. We would be now in violation and and we would be so tomorrow.

• 1610

The point is here that we didn't do as well as we should have, and the current act requires that we do that. It is so today and it will be so tomorrow. It would be operative. As for the opinion we have from Justice, it doesn't say this in that way, but in common language, that's in fact what it says. In fact, it says the agency is now, will be in the future, and will continue to be subject to the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Mitchell did raise this in response to a question of Mr. Bélanger. If the Justice opinion held that point of view, we would be receptive to looking at the type of amendment Mr. Godfrey just proposed. The reasoning behind that is not to repeat the law of the Official Languages Act but to capture the spirit and intent of the organization. In the absence of a legal statement in the act, we believe this is value added to have this in the preamble because it reflects spirit and intent.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, this is a question that I think Madame Tremblay and Mr. Bélanger alluded to. Could you explain why you prefer not to put it inside the act itself? Maybe that's the reason they—

Mr. Tom Lee: I cannot, but we do have legal counsel here from Justice. It's not Henry, but Michel Francoeur. He's available to testify before the committee, if you so wish, but I cannot.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like someone to explain something to me. My impression is that if it is included in the act, the Parks Canada Agency, that will be directly responsible for enforcing the act, will be liable to sanctions if it is caught not respecting the law. If it isn't explicitly set out in the act, then it is Treasury Board that will be accountable in its place for this lack of respect of the law. You won't be the ones held responsible. You could say that it isn't set out in the act establishing the agency and that you are accountable to Treasury Board. The responsibility would therefore be passed on if it isn't set out in the act.

If it isn't in the act, will the subcontractors you will be dealing with be required to respect the act? What is changed by the fact that it isn't included in the act? My impression is that a lot of things are changed.

Furthermore, you really have bad timing; you have chosen a really bad day. Indeed, despite all of the representations we made concerning what happened in Nagano not too long ago, the breakfast held this morning in preparation for the Commonwealth Games, that we were invited to, took place exclusively in English, once again, as if this country were a unilingual English-speaking country. You know, there are days... then, the Department of Foreign Affairs tables a document in English only before the subcommittee studying sport.

I am therefore having great difficulty understanding the importance of the objection being made. Unless you succeed in giving me a very clear demonstration, I won't budge an inch from my position.

The Chairman: Mr. Mills, followed by Mr. Muise and Mr. Godfrey. If there are no further comments following them, I will suggest that we then hear from the representatives of the Justice department.

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment for including suppliers who are supporting the parks system. I believe that to have it in the preamble is not enough. I think it has to be crystal clear. It has to be in the body of the bill. We all know what happens around here if it's not in the body of the bill. It just becomes like a tennis match between Treasury Board and the department. It goes all around, and before you know it, nothing ever happens.

• 1615

As we're heading into a period where we're going to be doing all kinds of things to promote national unity, in terms of promoting kids and families travelling our country from coast to coast, I think our parks system is going to be used. We should make sure it's crystal clear that every one of those people operating those parks has staff and support facilities with which they can service Canadians in both languages. I just don't think we should drag this on much longer. I think it should be crystal clear.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I have to agree totally with the comment from my colleague, Mr. Mills.

The Chairman: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'll continue to add to what Mr. Mills said. I guess my concern was about subcontractors. I put contractors, subcontractors, or agents. Maybe what we should do is just stop it at “Official Languages Act applies to the Agency”, period. My concern is that subcontractors doesn't include enough, so make sure it's all-inclusive. The standard legal phrase would be “agents, servants, and employees”, just like you said.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Excuse me, what I mean by a subcontractor is someone who is working on the park site but not supplying the general public. In other words, say I'm a painter and I'm coming to paint a part of a park but I'm not interacting with the general public. I don't think that point applies there. It's that where any of the agencies act with the public, they should pass the Official Languages Act.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important to consider the member's question in the context of the overall application of the act. In the bill establishing the agency, it is already provided that there will be many more sub-contractors than in the past. They will be numerous and they will be present in all areas, dealing with all sorts of aspects that might have an impact on the visual character of parks and on the direct contact with park visitors.

By not including them in the act, we risk bringing about numerous legal battles that could sizeably increase the income of various lawyers in Canada. We could be faced with very bizarre situations where sub-contractors who respect the act would work alongside contractors who would not respect it, which could result in a very disparate visual character at one and the same site.

I believe that it is indeed important that the two be covered because the act authorizes a very broad delegation of responsibilities from the agency to sub-contractors.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm going to be handing out—in both official languages, thank God—a document from the Department of Justice. I'm sure the Justice folks will be speaking to it. Basically, this will summarize what you're going to be seeing. The argument is that the agency is a clearly federal institution, and as such it automatically comes under the Official Languages Act.

The danger of going beyond that even, if it applies automatically, is that it creates, from the point of view of Justice, as they look at the Official Languages Act, a precedent that says in effect that once you put that in there, over and above what you have to do, if you forget to do it in the future for any other federal institution, there might be some doubt as to whether the Official Languages Act applies. For those who favour the Official Languages Act, there might be a perverse consequence in the future. As long as the Official Languages Act applies to all federal institutions and as long as the Parks Canada agency is a clearly federal institution, the act automatically applies.

Furthermore, there's a whole issue that I think is better laid out on page 4 of the letter that you will be getting momentarily. I just received a copy myself. When it gets into the field of subcontracting, it would seem to take the practice of Parks Canada further than is currently the case in terms of the Official Languages Act. Perhaps it might be useful, after Mr. Pankiw or before, to have the folks from Justice put it in a more succinct manner than I have, but you will be getting a letter in both languages as soon as we can copy it.

The Chairman: Mr. Pankiw. Then I would ask the experts from the Ministry of Justice to give us their comments.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like it to be more clearly explained to me. I'm not entirely clear what this means and what practical consequences that has for subcontractors.

• 1620

Mr. Mills suggested that a painter would not necessarily have to speak both official languages to get a contract in a park, but Mr. Crête seemed to have a different view. Is this ambiguous? Is this not clear? Should it be there?

The Chairman: Could you introduce yourself, give us your name, and comment on what you've heard.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Francoeur (Legal advisor, Department of Justice): Good afternoon. My name is Michel Francoeur and I work with the Justice Department of Canada. I believe it is important to indicate at the outset that, in the opinion of the Justice Department, the Parks Canada Agency will be completely and clearly subject to the Official Languages Act of Canada.

The Official Languages Act clearly stipulates which federal institutions are subject to it, and these federal institutions are defined. Of these definitions, three apply to the Parks Canada Agency.

First of all, in the Parks Canada Agency Act, the agency is designated as an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, which satisfies one of the criteria listed in the definitions contained in the Official Languages Act.

Secondly, the agency is defined as being subject to the direction given by a federal department. That satisfies a second criterion, a second definition contained in the Official Languages Act.

[English]

It is subject to the direction of a minister of the crown.

[Translation]

Thirdly, in the Parks Canada Agency Act, the agency is defined as a department as set out in the Financial Administration Act. There then is a third criterion, a third definition contained in the Official Languages Act.

Therefore, for these three reasons, the agency is fully subject to the Official Languages Act, in the same way as any federal department, be it Justice, Environment or Finance. The agency has exactly the same status as any one of those institutions. For that reason, it must fulfil all of the obligations imposed upon departments.

A committee member stated earlier that if it is not mentioned in the Parks Canada Agency Act that the agency is subject to the Official Languages Act, that if we rely solely on the present provisions of the Official Languages Act, that could create a situation where Treasury Board would be accountable or responsible instead of the Parks Canada Agency. In our view, that conclusion is not a valid one.

All federal institutions, all departments covered by the act, whether or not the act establishing them mentions that the Official Languages Act applies to them, must, each and everyone of them, respect the provisions of the act. Proof of this is that challenges against federal institutions are constantly being placed before the courts, and these challenges are provided for in the act. It is these institutions that are considered to be accountable before the courts. It isn't Treasury Board.

When the Justice Department, for example, is challenged before a court of law, it is the Justice Department that must appear before the court, before the Trial Division of the Federal Court. We would have exactly the same situation were a challenge to be made against the Canada Parks Agency. It is the agency that would be accountable and that would, for example, have to defend itself against any complaint lodged with the Commissioner of Official Languages or with a court of law.

Furthermore, the Official Languages Act at subsection 77(4) clearly provides that the Federal Court is free to impose any sanctions it finds appropriate in cases where a federal institution has not respected the Official Languages Act.

• 1625

In our view, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Parks Canada Agency is subject to the Official Languages Act in the same way as any federal institution or department.

Furthermore, the Official Languages Act is what we call an act of general application or catch all act. Other examples of catch all legislation are the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are acts that, as is the case of the Official Languages Act, contain general application mechanisms.

If Parliament were to begin including clauses in certain specific acts to underscore that an act of general application applies, why wouldn't it do so as well in the case of the Canadian Charter of Rights or Freedoms or the Canadian Human Rights Act, that are constitutional or quasi-constitutional acts just like the Official Languages Act?

Furthermore, others before me have indicated that the inclusion in the Parks Canada Agency Act of a specific provision outlining that the Official Languages Act applies would create a dangerous or undesirable precedent in the sense that no other act creating a federal institution, be it the Department of Justice or the Department of the Environment or other, contains a similar provision specifying that the Official Languages Act applies.

If Parliament were to begin including this type of provision in certain acts, we would have to wonder about the effect or the repercussions that might have on other institutions. There is a principle in law according to which the legislator is not supposed to mention in the body of the text things that are not required.

However, if Parliament inserts a provision stipulating that the Official Languages Act applies to a federal institution that already comes under the Official Languages Act, what will become of the legislator's intention regarding the other federal institutions that they too clearly come under the Official Languages Act?

Here then are the general comments that I wanted to make regarding the application of the Official Languages Act to the Parks Canada Agency as established in the bill we have before us.

We also talked about subcontractors. The Official Languages Act, in clause 25, provides that

[English]

any third party acting on behalf of a federal institution must provide its services in both official languages. In fact, what the provision says is that the federal institution must ensure that any services, any communications, provided on its behalf by a third party, i.e., a body that is not a federal institution, are provided in both official languages as if the services to the public had been provided by the federal institution itself.

That provision, in our view, would cover the cases of contractors or subcontractors, or any third party that is providing services to the public or communications to the public that fall under the responsibility of the agency, or that are offered as part of an agency relationship between the agency and the third party.

That provision, which applies to federal institutions, including, of course, the Parks Agency, is precisely the type of provision that was put into place to cover communications or services to the public that might be provided—pour le compte are the words used in section 25—

[Translation]

on behalf of a federal institution.

• 1630

The Chairman: Have you finished, Sir?

Mr. Michel Francoeur: My third comment is that the proposed amendment would have the Official Languages Act apply to the agency and to subcontractors.

[English]

This in effect would mean that the subcontractors would become federal institutions, so to speak, for the purposes of the Official Languages Act: i.e., they would be covered by and would have to respect all provisions of the Official Languages Act.

Now, as some of you probably know, the act does not deal only with services to the public. It deals with language of work. It deals with the promotion of both official languages. It deals with the equal participation of French- and English-speaking Canadians within federal institutions. It also deals with the recourse before the Federal Court.

If the act applies totally to a third party that happens to be providing a service to the public, it's one thing to say that the third party will have to make sure its services are provided in both languages when the third party deals with the public, but to go further and say that the language of work of the private enterprise will be both official languages, or to say that within this private business the owners of the business will have to ensure that French- and English-speaking Canadians within the business have equal chances to participate within the business, and to impose on that business, that private enterprise, a commitment to promote both official languages, would go way beyond where the Official Languages Act, as it now stands, requires.

In our view, to have an amendment that simply says the Official Languages Act applies to subcontractors would go much further than what is already required for third parties acting on behalf of federal institutions within the actual Official Languages Act, the one that is currently enforced and applicable to all federal institutions.

In fact, we have to wonder about the constitutional issues that may be raised. If the Official Languages Act is deemed to apply under this amendment, if it's deemed to apply to any third party, any subcontractor, including for the language of work of that particular enterprise, then we have to wonder whether, under the separation of powers between Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies, we're not getting into areas relating to labour relations and matters of a local and private nature.

That of course is not a problem when the third party is actually providing a service on behalf of a federal institution, because it's doing something that a federal institution should be doing. It's providing a service under the responsibility of a federal institution, thus in a field of federal competence or jurisdiction.

Those are the main points I want to address for the moment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, followed by Mr. Mills.

Mr. Paul Crête: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Francoeur has given us proof that our position is the right one. Indeed, the main purpose of this clause is to ensure that the agency and its subcontractors will truly come under the Official Languages Act. We will have to wait and see if the text is exactly the way it should be. However, as far as the spirit of the text is concerned, what you have told us is contained in the legal opinion that has been given to us. This confirms even more the fact that if this is not included in the text of the act, the result will be a situation that will prevent us from reaching the objective I, and the others who have supported this, have as legislators.

• 1635

You have given us a very clear explanation of your legal opinion. Our aim is precisely to do things that are legal and that reach our political objectives as far as results for the Canadian people are concerned.

The purpose of the clause, as it is presently drafted, is to ensure that subcontractors are required to respect the provisions and requirements of the Official Languages Act when they obtain a contract.

We can talk and wonder about whether or not subcontractors will be in direct contact with users. It is obvious, given your explanation and the legal opinion, that with this kind of legal opinion, if we don't include our statement in the act, then two, three, four or five years down the road, you will come before the courts and say: “You see, the legislator's intent was very clear, because on top of that, we gave him an explanation and it is included in here”.

That well explains the situation but does not give us the clarity and the precision that we wish to see ensured through the amendment.

I have another question, relating to something else altogether. You stated earlier that this is an act of general interest.

Mr. Michel Francoeur: Of general application.

Mr. Paul Crête: Of general application. Is the Access to Information Act not an act of general application? Nevertheless, clause 46 stipulates that the agency will be subject to the Access to Information Act.

At first glance, it seems to me that there are here two contradictions. There is the Access to Information Act and there is the Auditor General Act. In the case of the Auditor General Act, it is probably mentioned because it must be somewhere stated that it applies. As for the Access to Information Act, would the explanation not be the same one that you have just given us, in other words that since the agency fits into the definition of department, the act automatically applies to agencies?

I would ask that you clarify this given that, under the Official Languages Act and the Access to Information Act, there is a difference in perception that justifies the fact that in one case, it is written into the text of the act, and in the other, it isn't.

My impression is that the problem is not so much whether or not the notion of access to official languages is included in the act, but rather the consequences of that for subcontractors. This matter is very well explained in the legal opinion signed by Ms. McLellan.

The Chairman: Mr. Francoeur, I will wait. We will move on to the questions. There might be further questions for you.

Mr. Mills, you now have the floor, followed by Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Saada.

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Francoeur, let us imagine that I am operating a park and I lease out the concession stands to a private contractor. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that under the Official Languages Act, all of those people working in those concession stands would have to be bilingual. My own sense is that they wouldn't be, and that was the purpose of this amendment, to make sure that those people interacting with the public would be.

I want to give another example. Let us imagine that I am the garbage collector for the park. I just come in with my truck, pick up the garbage, and go out. I don't interact with the public. I have the understanding that this type of contractor is not affected by this amendment or by the Official Languages Act.

Those are my questions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

• 1640

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: At the outset, I must say that my field of expertise is not the drafting of legal texts. If there are changes to be made so as to give to this amendment, if the committee accepts it, the scope it intends, then I see no problem.

However, I am somewhat of the opinion of Mr. Crête, who says that the arguments put forward by Mr. Francoeur in fact simply reinforce what I am trying to do. When Mr. Francoeur stated that the subcontractor issue clearly goes beyond the scope of the Official Languages Act, perhaps he is right. However, what the government is attempting to do by removing itself in one way or another from a legal and regulatory framework that presently exists in the federal apparatus, would create tremendous gaps and flaws.

Let me give you an example. When the government of Canada tabled, last year or two years ago, a bill that was passed and on which I voted without knowing what I was voting on, as was the case, as a matter of fact, of all of my colleagues both in the House and in the Senate, transferring to the provinces the responsibility for fines, that was legitimate. The Official Languages Act applied to that agreement.

However, in Ontario, the province transferred that responsibility to the municipalities without requiring of them that they respect the Official Languages Act. French-Canadians living in Ontario, who up until then had rights saw themselves deprived of those rights overnight. The reasoning given by the Justice Department was the same as that given us by you today, in other words, that it wasn't an agency relationship.

I am sorry, but as French-Canadians in this bloody country, we are constantly, daily faced with situations in which our rights get frittered away if we don't affirm them. By proceeding in this way, the burden of proof is placed on French-Canadians who are forced to say: “I too want my flyers in French. I too want to be served in French.” For those working in departments today, who have acquired rights in the area of the language of work, these rights are they too going to be eroded because if we transfer to subcontractors a large portion—in principle, I am not against that—of the administration of national parks, there will be nothing to force these subcontractors to ensure that their employees enjoy the same rights as our present employees do.

This isn't being done voluntarily. Should parliamentarians err, they would be well-advised to err on the side of too much protection rather than not enough. And if that does indeed create a negative precedent, as you seem to believe, than we will correct it.

It is important to affirm certain basic principles in our country. One of these principles is the respect of linguistic duality. There are hundreds of thousands of French-Canadians living outside Quebec who are counting on the federal government to protect them. We must find the means to do this. In the same perspective—and I know that this will not please my colleague, Mr. Crête—, whether a national park is situated in Quebec or elsewhere, it should come under this act, because one way of shaping and nurturing national unity is to encourage Canadians to travel from one province to another. That means that English- speaking Canadians should also visit Quebec. They must be able to count on receiving services and having signage in both languages. That isn't the case at the present time everywhere in Canada. We don't respect our own legislation at the present time and you would have us believe that we should perhaps avoid creating a precedent that could prove to be a negative one. We don't yet know if it would be negative or not. If it is, then Parliament will still be here and will correct the situation.

I therefore do not agree with you whatsoever and do not accept what you say. I would be prepared to accept the matter of the preamble. I am perhaps still prepared to do that, and I see that there is more support around the table than I would have thought. It is quite a pleasant surprise.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, will all due respect, I don't believe that this is a question that should be put to Mr. Francoeur. He isn't the one who drafted the Official Languages Act. I believe that he is simply here to advise us. Mr. Francoeur, do you have any comments you would like to make?

Mr. Michel Francoeur: Thank you. First of all, I will deal with the issue relating to the Access to Information Act. I make no claim to being an expert regarding this act. If I understand it correctly, it applies to those institutions that are expressly designated. The act doesn't apply to any institution unless there is a schedule—I don't know if it is a schedule or another mechanism—such that the institutions are designated in a precise fashion.

• 1645

My understanding of the situation is that the reason why the Parks Canada Agency Act stipulates that the Access to Information Act applies or that the agency is an institution for the purposes of the Access to Information Act, is precisely because its application mechanism is different, compared with other acts such as the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Official Languages Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that I alluded to earlier, that are acts of general application and that don't list by name the institutions that are subject to them.

[English]

With regard to your two questions on the concessions, our understanding of section 25 of the act, which states that any third party acting on behalf of a federal institution must provide its services in both languages, is that if the service is one for which the federal institution is responsible, if the institution has a duty to provide those services or those communications, if it's within its mandate to provide such services, and if those services are provided by a third party, then they'll be covered.

You mentioned the example of the garbage collectors. You gave a very important precision to that when you mentioned that they were not interacting with the public. That, of course, is a key criterion under section 25, or under the entire Official Languages Act, for that matter. If there is no interaction with the public, the garbage collectors clearly do not fall under the purview of section 25. They wouldn't have to provide their services in both languages since they're not interacting with the public.

That's the general approach taken with regard to section 25. Is the third party doing something for which a federal institution is responsible? Is it within the mandate...?

[Translation]

Is it the vocation, the purpose of the federal institution to supply the service provided by a third party?

[English]

Those criteria are applicable to all federal institutions, because we have to remember that concessions and a variety of other contracts in which the parks agency might get involved, these types of arrangements, these types of contracts, are also signed by other federal institutions. Most institutions, in fact, at one point or another, get into concession contracts or service contracts or a variety of contracts, des marchés, that can be undertaken by federal institutions and third parties.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, Mr. Francoeur, I find that to be very interesting theoretically, but I can honestly tell you—and I'm a Toronto member—that the capacity of snack bars or concessions at Pearson International Airport—and this is prior to us giving it away—which was an agency of Transport Canada, did not have the capacity to serve those people in both official languages, whether it was in the bars or the donut shops or the restaurants or whatever. It just did not exist.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't know...now that we've devolved it to a local authority. Maybe people don't even care about it any more, but I illustrate the point that it maybe should have happened but hasn't.

• 1650

Mr. Michel Francoeur: In that regard it's important to underline that the services you've alluded to in airports are specifically covered under the official languages regulations, those regulations that were adopted or made pursuant to the Official Languages Act. Those regulations of course were enacted by Governor in Council. Those provisions of the regulations clearly state that the services provided in airports, such as restaurants, cafeterias, car rentals, etc., have to be provided in both languages.

If as a matter of practice they are not provided in both languages, in my view the difficulty is not a legal one; it's one of implementation. That, as we know, can be the case for some federal institutions for some types of services. The law is clear. The law, be it the Official Languages Act or the regulations, clearly indicates that services must be provided in both languages. The problem is not a legal one; the problem is an implementation one.

That's why in my capacity today as a legal adviser for the Department of Justice, I'm here of course to deal with the legal difficulties, the legal issues.

For some people the Constitution of Canada is extremely clear in what it requires, yet unfortunately many people have to go to court to make sure it is complied with. So my point is, to come back to the restaurants in the airports, clearly those services have to be provided in both languages, because the regulations say so. The same goes for the application of the Official Languages Act to the agency; clearly it applies. And it's also indicated in the act that any third party acting on behalf of a federal institution, such as the Parks Agency, has to provide their services in both languages.

If as a matter of implementation there are difficulties, that in our view does not relate to the actual wording of the act or the regulation or any piece of legislation. It really comes down to what practical and administrative measures are being taken to implement the act.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, I would say to you, Mr. Francoeur—and by the way, I don't want to make—

The Chairman: Hang on a minute. Mr. Saada asked to speak a long time ago. Excuse me.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I'm going to pass. I got my answer from Mr. Francoeur.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Mills, this is your last intervention, and then Mr. Crête. We can't just carry on forever.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I have a view that the notion of subcontractors is really not understood by most federal departments. In other words, I bet if we put the scanner on all the subcontractors in all the departments of government and crown agencies and did an audit on those ones that are interacting with the public—and I'm not just talking about Ontario, but any province of the land, Quebec, whatever—I bet you we would find very few of them are implementing the law.

Mr. Michel Francoeur: In that regard, as I've indicated, section 25 applies to all federal institutions equally, including the Parks Agency. If Parliament is to go beyond that framework—a framework that indicates that institutions are covered by the act and that any third party acting on their behalf must provide services in both languages—if any piece of legislation is to be specific as to what that means or be more specific as to the criteria of implementation of that provision in the case of the subcontractors of the Parks Agency, my submission is that in so far as this deals with a law of general application, this is something that should go back to cabinet and to the institutions responsible for the implementation and administration of the Official Languages Act.

The issue you raise is important. How do we implement this concept that third parties acting on behalf of federal institutions have to provide their services in both languages? The issue is important for all institutions, including of course the Parks Agency. So my submission is if we're going to extend or be more specific as to the application of this concept, all institutions should be covered, because, as I've indicated, subcontractors, concessions, and service contracts are day-to-day activities for all federal institutions, not just the Parks Agency.

• 1655

Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête, briefly.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Francoeur, you were telling us earlier that the Access to Information Act contains a schedule with a list to which names are added. If we were to make this addition, we would be confirming that the Access to Information Act applies to this Agency.

If the bill provides no specific protection in the area of official languages—especially since an act such as the Access to Information Act provides for specific cases—, that simply confirms that in the end sub-contractors will not be subject to the Official Languages Act. I am not arguing against you, but I am trying to understand what this means.

If we follow your explanation to its logical conclusion, if we include the reference to the Access to Information Act and if it is stipulated that the Agency is subject to it, by removing the proposed amendment, we are officially confirming that sub- contractors will not be subject to the Official Languages Act. Your interpretation contains a very interesting statement. You say that third parties are not subject to the provisions of this Act and that, were it to apply, their language of work would come under the Official Languages Act. The purpose of the bill we have before us is to render the management of parks easier, more fluid, more economically sound and more viable and to ensure that we will be able to invest more money in real business. But the legislator, in proceeding with this, has no intention whatsoever of depriving employees of their language rights. Those who are presently employed benefit from the protection of their language of work. The change we are suggesting would be such that all Francophone employees throughout Canada would continue to benefit from these rights in the carrying out of their duties. Should we pass the bill as is, they would no longer have that protection.

In my opinion, your interpretation of the legal framework is very enlightening and very correct, but it gives us precise confirmation of the fact that if we withdraw this amendment, we will clearly be creating a category of employees who will no longer be obligated to be bilingual in the carrying out of duties that now belong to employees subject to the Official Languages Act. In that context, as a legislator, it is a matter of perception. I could not accept such a situation.

The entire Act is structured so as to not remove any rights from present employees. If the bill is passed in its present form it will put an end to those entitlements for those employees who master both languages, who fill the linguistic requirements of their position and who are expecting, under the direction of the Agency, to continue to benefit from the conditions they presently enjoy in this area. No one has ever stated publicly: “In creating an agency, we will have the opportunity to skirt around the Official Languages Act”.

What you are telling us in your legal opinion is precisely that. On page 5, you say, through the minister, that if these provisions applied to third parties, there would be a requirement to respect the provisions of the act. There are several important aspects, but since you don't want that to apply, you are recommending that people not come under that. Consequently, there will be few bilingual jobs in the end. I believe it is very clear that that will be the end result. The legislator must look at this from that angle. We are free to take our time. Perhaps we should stand this clause for the time being in order to have the opportunity to reflect upon it. In any event, to my mind, the consequence of this has been made all the more evident by your legal interpretation.

The Chairman: Excuse me. We have heard Mr. Francoeur's explanation and we have had a debate that has lasted I don't know how long. I believe that the positions have been well set out. I will give the floor to Mr. Muise, Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Godfrey and allow Mr. Francoeur a final comment. If we must pursue our discussion about this, I believe that we should set this clause aside and come back to it later. Otherwise, we will have to come to some agreement.

• 1700

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I will move it, Mr. Chairman, if you like.

The Chairman: Move what?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I will formally move the amendment.

[English]

Mr. Dennis Mills: I'll second it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I move Amendment L-1.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 37 to 45 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 46)

The Chairman: This is a change to Parks Canada Agency, which will become automatic.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 46 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to)

(Clauses 49 to 52 inclusive as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Chair, wouldn't this just automatically apply? Do we have to do it every time?

The Chairman: We're going to go for every clause anyway, so we might as well.

(Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to)

(On clause 55)

The Chairman: On clause 55 there's an amendment.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Clause 55 has a technical amendment. It would be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 10 to 15 on page 21 with the following: “superintendent”, and the additional wording is to ensure we have a better agreement with the French version, directeur de parc.

• 1705

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to make reference to a future amendment to clause 61.01 on page 38. The reason I mention it is it makes a change to the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act with respect to both the superintendent and park wardens, and possibly we could incorporate both here so we could be consistent.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I believe that we must deal with them separately.

Mr. Mark Muise: Very well, if you wish.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, it's pretty confusing right now. Could you explain it again?

Mr. Mark Muise: We'll deal with it when we get there, then. I was trying to save time, but—

The Chairman: Yes, okay.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

The Chairman: So we have a technical amendment presented by Mr. Godfrey. Are there any comments?

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: There would have to be an amendment to that to reflect the name change, if the committee were going to adopt it.

The Chairman: Yes. That will be taken for granted: two name changes. Otherwise, are there any comments?

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Godfrey was saying that the purpose of his amendment was simply to make the English text fit with the French one. However, once we've passed the new clause 55, we will have to adjust the French version accordingly. The French version will no longer say the same thing once you have made your change to the English.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Schultz, could you speak to that so we're quite clear what we're voting on?

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey: We are only suggesting a change in the English version. The French version is perfectly clear and there is therefore no need to change it.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I do not agree. The park superintendent is:

A person appointed as such under the Canadian Parks Agency Act as well as any other person appointed under that Act who is authorized by that person to act on that person's behalf.

Therefore, if I go to a national park, I can in fact tell any person that he or she is the park superintendent. It is any person who is so designated, any person who is given that title, as well as any person, appointed under the Act who is authorized by that person to act on his or her behalf. The Act authorizes that person to act on behalf of whom? Of the Agency? It isn't clear. It is probably just clear enough for the lawyers to be able to interpret it.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay (Executive Director, Parks Canada, Québec): Ms. Tremblay, it is clear. The Act designates an employee as park superintendent, and this person then delegates a certain number of responsibilities. The title park superintendent can however not be used by just anyone, but only by the person who has been appointed to that position and to whom powers have been delegated under the Act. This is why the text also talks about park wardens. All of this must be done under the Act. We are talking here of a person appointed to that position.

The Chairman: If Mr. Godfrey's motion passes, is there agreement to have the French version say the same? If there is no need to modify the French version, then we won't change it.

[English]

So we'll vote on Mr. Godfrey's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Now there's PC-15, which is purely a change of name.

• 1710

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 55 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 56)

The Chairman: On clause 56 there is a name change.

Sorry, there is another change on 56. Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I move that clause 56 be amended by replacing line 20 on page 21 with the following:

Act or the Public Service Employment Act and designated by the Minister may

The Chairman: Would you clarify, Mr. Godfrey, or ask Mr. Schultz to?

Mr. John Godfrey: I think I'd like Mr. Schultz to help me here.

The Chairman: Mr. Schultz.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Currently this same provision allows people who are appointed under the Public Service Employment Act, who are designated by the minister, to exercise the powers of peace officers. This lets people who are either parks employees or persons in other departments, such as the Department of Fisheries, say, to exercise certain peace officer powers under the National Parks Act.

Obviously, it was necessary to have an amendment to refer to the Parks Canada Agency Act here so that this provision could be used in respect of agency employees. It's also hoped that government will be able to continue to use this provision in respect of employees of other departments, as has been the case in the past. In order to do that, we have to put back in, as it were, a reference to the Public Service Employment Act. That would include employees of Fisheries or...

Mr. Tom Lee: As a point of clarity, this was simply an omission. This is the current situation.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 56 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 57 to 60 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 61)

The Chairman: Clause 61 is subject to NDP-8.7, page 37.1.

Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29, in clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 35 and 36 on page 22 with the following:

purposes of maintaining existing infrastructure that the Treasury Board

My explanation on that...?

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: It would help in my response if Madame Vautour stated why she is putting forth this amendment. It's difficult for me to respond because I don't know exactly what she is trying to achieve here.

Ms. Angela Vautour: We were a little concerned about the word “townsites”. What exactly does “townsites” mean? Does it mean infrastructure, or does it mean a building, a restaurant in a park? The word “townsites” is what we are concerned about.

Mr. Tom Lee: There are seven communities in national parks. Those communities, with the exception of Banff, which is under a form of local self-government, are governed by Parks Canada. We are managing those under a revolving fund. In other words, they are intended to operate fundamentally under the same financial system as local government. People pay taxes, they pay for the water and sewage, and they pay for infrastructure and so on. That's what we're dealing with here.

• 1715

It is exclusive to townsites. It doesn't have anything to do with the general financing of parks at all. It is peculiar to those communities. Typical expenditures under that are basically that local residents pay into the fund—water and utility rates, garbage collection, and so on—and that is for any new infrastructure needs for their purposes, such as a new water main or replacement of an old water main, tearing up the street and replacing it, that type of thing. Their money flows into that. Then the money flows back out. We can't take that money and spend it on other things in the park. It's local residents' money. It's kept in a revolving fund and it goes into the functioning of the community.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Are you saying there is no possibility that this could be used to develop more townsites?

Mr. Tom Lee: No, not at all.

Ms. Angela Vautour: It would be for the upkeep specifically of Banff and Jasper.

Mr. Tom Lee: It excludes Banff because Banff operates under Alberta municipal laws, just like a normal municipality. It's the only one. For the other ones there are no municipal laws. Parks Canada is a law, I guess you would say, but there's no form of local government other than advisory committees.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Sarmite Bulte): Are there any other questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 61 agreed to)

The Chairman: We're now discussing new clause 61.01, G-5, page 38.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: There's a technical amendment that says we have to add, after line 9 on page 23:

1997, c.37

Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act

61.01 The definitions of “park warden” and “superintendent” in section 2 of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act are replaced by the following:

“park warden”

This is because of a drafting oversight in the bill. We need to change the appointment authority for wardens and superintendents from the Public Service Employment Act to the Parks Canada Agency Act. This change makes sure there will be concordant definitions of the terms “park warden” and “superintendent” with the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act and the National Parks Act. It does not require a parallel amendment in the provincial act.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You said Quebec does not have to amend this?

Mr. John Godfrey: No. This is what is written and it must be true.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You are a man of easy faith. But why is it not required? Do we have to pass a similar change?

[English]

Mr. Henry Schultz: Why does the provincial government not have to repass this change?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: Because the park warden or, by delegation, the superintendent, is responsible only for implementing federal legislation and not provincial legislation. The provincial counterpart does the same thing. Therefore, we do not need to change the provincial legislation.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: So, are you going to notify Quebec that you have amended your legislation?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: We have already done so.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Very well.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: It is always harmonized. This is what we call mirror legislation.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1720

The Chairman: We'll now look at new clause 61.1, G-6, page 40.

Mr. John Godfrey: This is just to make it agree with everything, now that we have the St. Lawrence...

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 62 agreed to)

The Chairman: We will now deal with the schedule, NDP-9.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I will withdraw that one.

The Chairman: Could I have the unanimous consent of members for NDP-9 to be withdrawn?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Schedule 1 agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now go to clause 1.1, page 41.2, PC-22.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, what we want to do with amendment 22 is bring the preamble into the heart of the bill, and that's basically what we're doing. As you see here, that's what we're proposing.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: After that, our next amendment is practically the same; we've made just a minor adjustment to it.

The Chairman: NDP-10?

Ms. Angela Vautour: Yes. Can I speak on that amendment at this point?

The Chairman: We'll start with PC-22, to find out whether it carries or not.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Okay.

Mr. Mark Muise: I would hope that it becomes part of the bill itself and not the preamble. Just to give that a bit more force, Mr. Mills said earlier it's not enough to be in the preamble. We know what happens if it's not in the body of the bill. Further to that comment, we bring this amendment forward.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think it is a very good idea, except that I think we should carry the preamble before section 1 in case we make changes to the preamble that would require amendments to section 1. So it might be best to reserve our decision on 1.1.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any comments from the officials?

Mr. Lee or Mr. Schultz, would you like to speak to this?

• 1725

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman, and by way of general remarks rather than specifically. The general remarks are by way of explanation to the committee of the nature of the bill before it.

The bill you have before you is what I would term an organizational act. The general structure of the bill is to set in place an organization, namely the Parks Canada Agency. In dealing with mandate, we have been very careful not to change mandates of the act. The mandate of the agency is derived from the acts it administers. The purpose of national parks, the ecological protection, the visitor use, and so on, are set out in those acts—the National Parks Act, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, and so on.

So this is not an act to rejig the mandates or, in a legislative manner, try to reinforce the mandate of the National Parks Act, which would in fact, if not stated exactly the same way, be an amendment to the National Parks Act.

The way this was handled, we tried to capture in the preamble the general package of...

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, excuse me for cutting into your wonderful striving, but I just wanted to let the members know it's a 15-minute bell. There are about 10 minutes left. There are three bills and two motions before the House.

I would suggest, if the members agree, that we come back after the vote and give half an hour. I think we can finish this off. Otherwise we come back tonight or tomorrow. But I think if we come back after the vote...there's not much left to do. This is really the guts of it that we're going to discuss right now.

So we can carry on for another five minutes. I'll let you finish your explanation, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: As I was saying, this is an organizational act. We've been extremely cautious not to impact on the foundations of the National Parks Act, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, and so on. That's the general structure of the bill.

The bill is not a regulatory type of bill. The National Parks Act is, and it has regulations, enforcements, fees and charges, and all that type of thing. This act is an act without a regulatory function. The effect of moving the preamble into the act portion has the effect of moving some draft material in that is not legislative in nature. These clauses were not drafted as legislative material. They would have looked quite different had they been drafted that way.

It is difficult to conceive of taking material as drafted to go into a preamble and moving it into legislation, because the language and the intent is entirely different.

The final thing I would say to committee members is that there is a great danger, if we attempted this, that we would have an agency act that could be in conflict with the National Parks Act, because this material was not drafted so that they would be exactly the same, if you like. We have that general possibility—in fact I think we would conclude a likelihood—that movement into the preamble would in fact confound and confuse the agency in trying to carry out its responsibilities.

Notwithstanding that, there are two things I would add. Perhaps in looking at some of the later material there are ideas that in fact duplicate some of the material contained in this item that we might consider for individual amendments to the preamble on a clause-by-clause review of it. So I'm not eliminating those.

• 1730

Finally, we recognize that there is a desire by the community, and by some members of the committee, to make sure our legislation is as good as possible. As the committee knows, we have indicated the government's intent to bring forth the National Parks Act for amendment and also a specific act pertaining to marine conservation areas.

Some elements of the ideas that both committee members are proposing and that members who made submissions here have proposed might well be better suited to be considered in that context. That's where some of them belong; they belong in the mandate acts.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, quickly.

Mr. Mark Muise: I totally see where Mr. Lee is going with this and where he comes from. I guess what he is saying reinforces why this is not the correct way but why this exercise was done. It's to carry what's in the act—not speak against what the act says but carry what the act says into the parks agency legislation.

I don't know how to go any further, but I agree with what he is saying. I think we want to take what's there and give this more substance, more meat, and assure ourselves that what we want to accomplish is accomplished.

The Chairman: I don't think any of us want to miss the vote. I'm going to adjourn now.

We will come back just after the vote, and I think we can finish it off.

• 1733

• 1855

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ladies and gentlemen, maybe we should resume.

[English]

I won't be here long. Don't worry.

[Translation]

We were on new clause 1.1, the PC-22 amendment. Mr. Muise, would you like to continue?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes. I was just saying that Mr. Lee's explanations give us even more reason to include the preamble in the bill itself.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Just so it is clear for everyone.

[English]

just so everybody is on the same page, we're dealing with amendment PC-22, page 41.2 of the package. It is at the very end of the amendments we're dealing with today and is the addition of a new clause 1.1.

[Translation]

Is that clear?

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): All right Mr. Crête?

Mr. Paul Crête: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Did you find it?

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, yes.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Okay. Carry on.

Mr. Mark Muise: Therefore, we're suggesting in our amendment that we bring the preamble into the body of the act. We heard discussion from both sides, and Mr. Lee explained to us that it can really tie the hands or... I've lost my train of thought. There is some difficulty about Mr. Lee accepting what we're proposing. I'll stop here and let someone else take it over. My thought will come back to me.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Who wishes to comment?

Mr. Lee, would you care to comment again?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, maybe just to refresh Mark's memories of my concern. I made a number of points with regard to moving this into the act.

First, it will very likely introduce confusion about the powers of the agency act and the powers of the respective acts for which the agency... It hasn't been drafted in a manner that would structurally do that. That's point one.

Secondly, this wording is not constructed as legislative language, as legal language for the purposes of legal application of laws. It has been structured as a generic overview statement.

Those were probably the two major points I made. This proposal causes me a great deal of concern.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Muise.

Madame Vautour?

Ms. Angela Vautour: Go ahead, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'm going to let Mrs. Vautour go ahead. I think she has something to say that would add value here.

Ms. Angela Vautour: As I was saying earlier, what we're looking for here is the giving of a purpose to the agency. We don't have it in the act. We have the preamble, but we're looking to give it a purpose, and we're also looking to make sure that the agency is going to implement the National Parks Act, because that's not in the act. I find it confusing that the agency is going to be able to protect and all of this—which is part of the mandate—if it's not in the act. Why is it really—

Mr. Tom Lee: This legislation makes the agency responsible for specific pieces of legislation. The specific pieces of legislation, such as the National Parks Act, provide the mandates for protection, ecological integrity, and so on. That's where those mandates occur. When you look at the mandate of the agency, it derives purely from those acts. We don't want to move those acts into the agency bill. It will just create terrific confusion.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: This would create something that is totally outside the scope of the bill itself, outside the scope of the act, thereby creating confusion among the mandates spelled out in specific pieces of legislation.

It risks putting into contradiction the agency that is supposed to carry forward with those other pieces of legislation. That's the mandate. Those are the purposes. They're located in other pieces of legislation.

• 1900

When you do something like this, which is not intended to be done... The preamble is simply a general description; it is not the purposes. The purposes are contained in other pieces of legislation. It's the agency that carries those things out so we can't do this.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Muise, concluding remarks.

Mr. Mark Muise: Are we saying then that the Parks Agency is directed by the National Parks Act and that the Parks Canada Agency Act is guided by that, and therefore, if we put this in here we're going to confuse it to the point where one can't work because of the other?

Mr. John Godfrey: It's not only that it's administering the National Parks Act; it's also the historic sites and monuments and it's marine conservation areas. There's a whole body of legislation that the agency is there to implement. All of the purposes and all of the specifics of those various acts are contained elsewhere, not here. The preamble is simply a description of that.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are you ready for the question? No? You have the floor, Ms. Vautour, and it will be Mr. Crête next.

[English]

Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Lee, there were witnesses, especially from Wildlife Conservation and different NGO groups, who would support this bill if at least the principles of the preamble were part of the act. Why would they be feeling so much concern that it's not part of the act?

Mr. Tom Lee: You're asking me to speak on behalf of a third party here, which, quite frankly, I'm unable to do. But in discussions with them, I think they perhaps have some confusion over what the purpose of this act is, which is solely to create an agency, and are unaware of the potential problem they are creating. I really believe this, and it is not in any way critical of them, although I have spoken to a number of them about it.

The second point is that a number of them hope to utilize this act to strengthen or modify certain aspects, for example, of the National Parks Act, but really that should occur, as indicated earlier, at the time when we bring forth amendments to the National Parks Act. If there's something wrong with ecological integrity, that's what the National Parks Act is all about and that's where the correction should be taken. In my opinion, we shouldn't be using this bill to create a potential conflict. Furthermore, under this bill, because there are no regulatory powers, you would not be able to use this act to implement an ecological clause or something like that; you'd have to go to the National Parks Act.

Henry, correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Mr. Henry Schultz: I wouldn't correct you; you're correct.

Again, the mandate for this agency lies in these other acts. The link is in clause 5, which gives the agency the authority to exercise the power of the minister under the National Parks Act and the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. In clause 6 it makes it clear the agency is administering those acts and has to administer those acts within the scope of those acts. A legal point too is when you have a clause like this that sets out the purpose, the more paragraphs you put in the more likely you are limiting the scope of the agency's ability to carry out the powers to assist the minister in acting for the minister as an agency under those other acts.

The Chairman: Do I understand, Mr. Schultz, that you're saying the way this is phrased to include the purpose of the act in there would be to go beyond the scope of this bill?

Mr. Henry Schultz: I would think so. The scope of this bill was to enable the agency to exercise powers of the minister under other acts. Presumably that means within the scope of those acts and you're imposing limitations that weren't contemplated beforehand.

• 1905

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, if we were to push the reasoning used by the witnesses to its logical conclusion, it would be better not to have any preamble at all, since they are saying that the bill's only purpose is to create the agency and that the mandates are laid out in the acts.

As for the non-governmental organizations, it's not that they are confused about the bill, it is just that they are not content with promises. If we only establish the agency, it means that in the future the minister, when other acts will be amended, will be able to give directions. The preamble presently leaves a lot of discretion and it means it cannot be used for interpretation.

Mr. Lee described what the NGOs really are looking for in there. I think they want the purpose to be formally set out so that, when the time comes to take legal steps or otherwise, we have legislation with teeth. Otherwise the agency will be very much influenced by any changes made elsewhere and by the directions given by the minister. The NGOs, especially those dealing with conservation, may have concerns about this, in view of the pressures that may be exerted in the area of tourism as opposed to conservation, for example.

As a legislator, I would ask the witnesses, and especially Mr. Lee, what he would do if he were a legislator trying to tighten up the definition of the agency in order to make it stronger and to give it greater legal weight. How could we do that without interfering with other acts? How should it be done?

As a legislator, this is what I aim for and you, as an expert, can give me advice. When you say that the wording is not really constructed as legal language, I think this could be resolved quite easily. If there is a wording issue, we could postpone clause by clause consideration and ask a legal expert to rewrite it. However, in order to reach our objectives as legislators and to meet the concerns of groups that came before this committee, it would be helpful if you told us how to insert this properly into the act.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: If the act is unclear that the mandate of the agency is to administer the National Parks Act and other series of acts, then we could look at ways to make that more clear. I think it is clear, but if it isn't clear, that would be one way of doing it. That's the only one that immediately comes to mind.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Lee, it's not that the act is not clear, it is altogether too clear. The act clearly says that the agency will have to comply with the direction given by the minister or other acts. The bill does not define the limits within which the agency will have to work. However, it will be subject to all the changes that might be made to other acts. If we had in the future a wave of consumerism taking precedence over conservation, we would have a problem. We are looking for the right way to do it. In this sense, the bill is clear but does not go far enough. I want the bill to go further and I am asking if there is a way to do it other than that contemplated by this amendment.

• 1910

The Chairman: Allow me to interject, Mr. Crête. In a previous meeting, in the presence of Ms. Tremblay—and Mr. Lee will correct me if I am wrong—, you said you would be willing to look at amending the objectives of specific acts such as the National Parks Act to find ways to increase the powers in those acts that have operative provisions.

[English]

Before you answer, I would like to go on to Mr. Bélanger, and then we'll let you give us your views.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In essence, this is what I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think we will be able to solve this issue tonight. When the minister was here, he also said that he is on the verge of consulting widely on a bill amending the National Parks Act and the agency mandate that it involves.

There was an opening to try to satisfy everybody's concerns. I know it might be naive to await this review of the National Parks Act but this is where everything will be decided and played out. It is not here, because this agency has mainly an administrative role.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, could you speak to this point and tell us whether I interpreted your views correctly?

Mr. Tom Lee: You did, and I think for the second time today I will reaffirm that Mr. Bélanger also gave the correct report.

I guess I could best explain the problem that occurs if you would turn to the second page of this amendment, item (i), the fourth item from the bottom. It makes the statement, “to ensure ecologically sustainable use of marine conservation areas”.

We will be bringing forth a bill on marine conservation areas. The effect of this amendment purports to in fact define an element of that bill that is not even yet prepared. This is extremely difficult.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the deliberations. I don't know how I would go about doing this, but being that this is my amendment, I would be prepared to withdraw it, considering the fact that the National Parks Act and the Historic Sites and Monuments Act are where the direction does come from. This act is only the operational arm of those acts.

If we were able to revisit those acts and put some of this in them, I think that would go a long way toward solving some of the problems we have.

So I would be prepared to withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: If ever for some reason the agency was taken to court, would there be a possibility that the preamble or the act would be taken into consideration, and which one would hold more in court?

Mr. Tom Lee: I can respond to one part of that. If you're dealing with an item like ecological sensitivity, for sure it's going to be the National Parks Act that is going to be examined.

I think the second part of your question is for Justice in terms of the interplay between the preamble and the act.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Section 13 of the Interpretation Act says:

The preamble of an enactment

—and that includes an act of Parliament—

shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.

[Translation]

In the English version, it says:

13. The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.

[English]

If it's a question of interpreting the application of the act in question, the court will use it as a guide in interpreting what the act meant. The preamble is not for nothing. It serves as an interpretive tool. But it doesn't necessarily—or rarely, and certainly not in this case—impose substantive rights.

• 1915

Like any lawyer, I'm reluctant to deal in hypotheses, but if it were to come to litigation about whether the agency had the authority to do a particular act, it's most likely that the court would—largely—look at this bill unamended, without the proposed amendments here, to find out whether the agency is properly exercising a power conferred on the minister under the National Parks Act or the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. That's how the court would look at it.

The way this is structured, as long as the agency is properly acting on behalf of the minister under those statutes, it's likely that the act would be within the authority of the agency.

The Chairman: Just to clarify a point, I've received advice—and these things are of course debatable—that this amendment would go beyond the scope of what we are trying to do here, that it could cause a conflict with regard to specific operating acts such as the National Parks Act and the others.

I appreciate your point of view, but I haven't wanted to rule on this because I think it's good to have these debates in a sort of consensus setting.

What I wanted to point out is that, if I recall the National Parks Act—and Madame Vautour, this might kind of allay some of your fears—one of the operative sections states that the priority mission of Parks Canada is to preserve the integrity of the parks. We have the assurance of the minister—and now of the assistant deputy minister—that this would be revisited and that we can bring the amendments there. I think that is the right place to do it.

In the light of this, I will listen to Madame Tremblay. I would like to avoid making rulings. I would like to go through this by consensus. Maybe we can arrive at some sort of consensus that might rally all of us.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is there a consensus to withdraw the amendment? We have the mover, who is—

The Chairman: There are two amendments there. There is one from Mr. Muise.

Mr. Muise, I take it that you welcome unanimous consent to withdraw your amendment, right?

Mr. Mark Muise: Based on what I've been hearing, Mr. Chairman, I have no reason for it after I've heard the legal expression here that what is being said is in fact true.

The Chairman: I understand.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes, I would be prepared to withdraw, if I—

The Chairman: Why don't we deal with them one at a time?

We'll deal with the PC amendment first. Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Now we are faced with the NDP amendment.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a question of clarification. According to the explanation you just gave, Mr. Schultz, the preamble provides clarification, explains the act, indicates its scope and is a guide or a reference. But as a citizen I could not, for example, sue in court under the preamble of an act. I have to sue under a section. It is difficult to sue under a preamble. It has to be under a section. Am I right?

Mr. Henry Schultz: Yes, and there are sections.

[English]

There are provisions in this act that give the agency authority to carry out acts, usually on behalf of the minister.

You're right when you say that a citizen would not be able to take an action on the basis of whether the preamble was offended or something like that. A citizen would first look to see whether the agency was properly carrying out its powers under the act, and in interpreting the meaning of those powers in the act the court would look to, among other things, the preamble. You are right when you say that you need to have a provision in the act, but you do have provisions.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If that is so, instead of having amendments like those in front of us, could we not, for instance, spell out in a section that the preamble is an integral part of the act and should be interpreted as such?

Mr. Henry Schultz: That would leave us with the same problem. By doing so, we might create inconsistencies between this act and other acts such as the National Parks Act.

• 1920

The Chairman: Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: To clarify this, I would say that national parks are not created under the Agency Act, but under the National Parks Act. Therefore, if there were things people disagreed with, they would take action under the National Parks Act. The National Parks Act sets out a series of mechanisms, including consultations if changes were to be made in the balance between conservation and use, for instance. The management plan would have to be amended and public consultations would have to take place before making significant changes or changing the mandate or the role of the area that has been made into a national park.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If we are setting up the agency, it is enough to deal with the agency. But if a park manager or their staff drew our attention to the fact that the park will be damaged if it gets too many visitors, what recourse will there be for people working in the park, for citizens or environmental groups if nothing is done to remedy the situation? Is there someone to protect us?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: At the time when a park is created, there is a management plan. It provides a whole series of measures to determine the type of resources and the sensitivity of the resources. Based on that inventory, a zoning plan is established, which is a management tool for the use of the area. The zoning plan also identifies a number of activities, including sustainability with regards to trails, camping grounds and other uses. An impact study is required for each project . These impact studies identify ways and means and mitigation measures. This tells the park manager how many visitors can be sustained. It also allows him to determine the type of use for each area and the number of people that can be allowed in.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Very well.

[English]

The Chairman: We are now dealing with the new clause 1.1 and NDP-10 on page 41.5.

Madame Vautour.

[Translation]

Ms. Angela Vautour: We are calling for the question on the amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: We're now voting on NDP-10, page 41.5.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: We will now deal with clause 1 of the bill.

This is the short title of the bill. Of course we'll have to change the name in accordance with the previous motions. Is it agreed?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now deal with the preamble of the bill.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, in the document that you handed out, there was the paragraph in the REF-5 amendment before the preamble in the other document. It says section 0.

The Chairman: That was the short title, but the title is being changed automatically. Parks Canada, it's the same thing, Madam. It is section 1.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That's not what I have here. It doesn't have to do with the title.

The Chairman: Ref-5 is the same thing as section 1.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The same thing as what?

The Chairman: It changes the title to “Parks Canada”.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is the same thing as what?

The Chairman: It deals with section 1.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: But I am talking about section 0.

• 1925

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, what are you talking about exactly?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is a bit further down, but it doesn't matter.

The Chairman: Let's go to the preamble.

[English]

You'll remember we stood clause 33. I think we'll deal with clause 33 now.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Muise: I would like a clarification, Mr. Chairman. On what page are we?

[English]

The Chairman: We have just adopted clause 1 of the bill. What's left is the preamble and clause 33, which was stood. I would suggest we go to 33 and deal with it once and for all.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: I just caught an error in the wording of the clause on page 41.8, which we've just passed. It should read “Parks Canada Agency Act”.

The Chairman: Yes. In other words, whatever was in Ref-5 and PC-23 should read, “Parks Canada Agency Act”.

[Translation]

In French, it will be Loi sur l'Agence Parcs Canada.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In Bill C-23, it says “Parks Agency Act”.

The Chairman: Yes, that is Bill C-23.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is the wording in REF-5 that is not correct.

The Chairman: Yes. It is going to become section 1.

[English]

(On clause 33—Corporate plan)

The Chairman: If members will recall, we asked Mr. Schultz to suggest wording that would accommodate the references of the members. We're talking about NDP-8.6 on page 21.3 in your bundle. It had to do with the tabling of a corporate plan.

Mr. Schultz.

Mr. Henry Schultz: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to suggest is that we conclude with the following phrase at the end of subclause 33(1) so that the last few lines would read that the minister would:

table a summary of the plan in each House of Parliament on any of the first thirty days on which that House is sitting after the plan is so approved,

and then we would add the phrase “at which time—

Madame Tremblay?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like you to repeat because the interpreters are unable to follow.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Schultz, just go a little more slowly.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Speak more slowly, please.

[English]

Mr. Henry Schultz: I'm sorry.

As I was saying, “at which time the plan shall be made available to the public on request.”

[Translation]

And the English version would be:

the first thirty days on which that House is sitting after the plan is so approved, at which time the plan shall be made available to the public on request.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Is there any reason why we're not putting the words “complete corporate plan” in there?

Mr. Henry Schultz: I would suggest that because we all refer to “the plan”, it means the complete plan; you have the summary and then you have the plan. The complete—

Ms. Angela Vautour: The complete plan? I'm just wondering if it cannot be argued at one point that what we're saying is that the plan is the summary plan. Is there room for confusion if we don't do this? That's the question.

Mr. Henry Schultz: At the risk of seeming legalistic—but it's an occupational hazard—I think you are risking confusion, because if you refer to the “complete plan” in this provision but you don't refer to “complete plans” or “complete reports” in other provisions, you risk...

And what does it mean? I would suggest that it's standard language to refer to it simply as you've done earlier; you've referred to the corporate plan earlier in the provision, so you can just continue to refer to “the plan”. That means the corporate plan. It does not mean the summary of the plan.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It is a satisfactory compromise in view of the fact that you told us that in such a plan you might have to take out some pages containing confidential information.

So we cannot write that it should be the complete plan since there are confidential parts that cannot be released.

• 1930

Therefore, it is better to use the word “plan”, since the plan is more than the summary. It is the plan less a few pages taken out for reasons of confidentiality. But at least we have all of the other pages, which is more than only the summary.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We cannot make land acquisitions public.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Do you think so? I think that adding the word “complete” would raise the problem you are suggesting.

[English]

The Chairman: I think it really reflects what we are trying to do.

If this is in order, I would like to have a motion to bring forward the suggestion of Mr. Schultz.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I so move.

The Chairman: There's no problem with the language. Mrs. Vautour suggested it should possibly be amended, but we agreed it stay just like he said. So it's quite clear. The language is quite clear.

Mr. Schultz, just to have the record straight, repeat the sentence, please.

Mr. Henry Schultz: The English words I would add at the end of subclause 33(1) are “, at which time the plan shall be made available to the public on request”.

[Translation]

In French, I propose to have after the word “approbation”: “À ce moment, le plan doit être accessible au public sur demande.” In French, it might be better to have a new sentence.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If it is a new sentence, it should be “Et à ce moment...”

Mr. Henry Schultz: Very well.

The Chairman: In fact, there will be a proper French translation.

An hon. member: Right.

The Chairman: This is Mr. Godfrey's motion.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 33 as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we will go to the preamble. We'll now call PC-24, Mr. Muise, on page 44.11.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to withdraw PC-24?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Now I will call NDP-11, page 41.12. Madame Vautour.

[Translation]

Ms. Angela Vautour: I am lost.

The Chairman: NPD-11, page 41.12.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Okay.

The Chairman: Do you have it?

[English]

Ms. Angela Vautour: That's the one I'm withdrawing.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is there no unanimous consent?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Wait a minute. I read something on line 2 and I wonder what it is about: “as an independent unit”. What is it about? It wasn't there yesterday. Is it withdrawn?

The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chairman: The amendment is withdrawn.

[English]

We'll go on to Reform-5 page 42. Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The amendment is to replace line 6 on page 1 with “generations to use and enjoy and in order to further the”.

The Chairman: Have you any comments, Mr. Godfrey, or the officials?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I'm adding “to use and enjoy”.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Thomas Lee: I have just two points for the committee.

One is that the use and enjoyment clause is a clause in the National Parks Act in that respect.

• 1935

The second point is that a number of clauses in the preamble relate to use and enjoyment, such as paragraph (k) on page 2. We believe this is adequately covered by both the National Parks Act and the material in the preamble.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, did you ask for the floor?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I was going to ask the real meaning given to the word “use”. Does it mean that parks could be “commercialized all the way in order to make use” of them? If that's what it means, I would be very opposed to having this included in the preamble. It is fine to enjoy, but I would be concerned if it means excessive use could be made of parks, like commercialization.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: I think we should look at this on the basis of use for specific purposes. It is not making use in the sense of overutilization but in the sense of using a park as was envisioned at the time of its creation.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm quite willing to accept your explanation, but the amendment is moved by the Reform Party.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: Excuse me!

Some hon. members: Ah, ah!

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It doesn't matter, Mr. Tremblay.

[English]

The Chairman: Order, please. Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

Are there any other comments?

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We will go on to NDP-12. Ms. Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I just realized on this amendment I will need consensus to change a few words. Right now it says that Bill C-29 in the preamble be amended by “ replacing”, and we're saying “inserting” instead of “replacing”.

The Chairman: You can move the amendment as well. You don't need consent. Just tell us what your amendment is.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Okay. I move that Bill C-29 in the preamble be amended by inserting lines 10 to 16 on page 1 with the following:

Whereas the Government of Canada wishes to establish an Agency that will recognize national parks, national historic sites and related heritage areas that provide ecological, cultural, educational, scientific and spiritual benefits to Canadians and all those who visit these special places

This would be inserted before line 10, and what is in line 10 now would be line 17. We don't want to take out lines 10 to 16; we want to add these lines before them. It would change the line-up.

The Chairman: In other words, you want to insert this paragraph between the first “whereas” and the second “whereas”. Is that correct?

Ms. Angela Vautour: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is there a definition for the word “spiritual”?

Ms. Angela Vautour: Do you mean spiritual benefits? I think when you visit a park there are all kinds of spiritual benefits.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, but what I imagine to be a spiritual benefit may not be what you imagine it to be.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I hope so.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So I'm asking if there is a definition.

Ms. Angela Vautour: No. I think each person has their own definition of that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Without limit—is that what you're saying?

Ms. Angela Vautour: Well, I mean...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Well, that's what you're saying.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We'll go on to NDP-13. Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: We dropped it.

The Chairman: NDP-13 is withdrawn.

On NDP-14, Madame Vautour.

• 1940

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29 in the preamble be amended by replacing line 17 on page 1 with the following: And whereas the Government of Canada wishes... And by deleting lines 22 to 38—withdraw this.

The Chairman: Is there consent to withdraw NDP-14?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Let's move to NDP-15.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Same thing.

The Chairman: Is there agreement to withdraw NDP-15?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: On NDP-16, Ms. Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: This could change. I just want to make sure I'm not withdrawing something I shouldn't be. The line-up has changed here.

I move that Bill C-29 in the preamble be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 1 with the following:

to protect significant examples of Canada's natural environment and cultural

and by replacing line 29 on page 1 with the following:

the nation, and their importance to global biodiversity.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: What you lose by doing that is any reference to “nationally significant”; that's been dropped. As well, this clause, which tried to balance off the natural heritage with the cultural heritage, would now swing more over to the natural heritage, to the detriment of the cultural heritage.

I would be opposed to it.

The Chairman: What about the second part, Mr. Godfrey?

Mr. John Godfrey: Let's see...

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: On the second part, there is an item that is stated as “global biodiversity”, which the committee may consider as value added in the amendment.

I would suggest that if you wish to do this, I would not place it here. I would place it under paragraph (d) when we get there. At the top of page 2, the third line, I would simply consider adding “and biodiversity”. The word “global” is already in there.

What I'm saying is global diversity is an element that isn't in the preamble at this point in time. The committee may consider that as value added.

The Chairman: Ms. Vautour, if you hear the suggestion then, there seems to be an agreement to retain “global diversity” and place it somewhere else.

On the basis of this, we'll vote on this amendment and then when we get further we can just go back to it if it's defeated. Okay?

(Amendment negatived)

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Where would the words “global biodiversity” be inserted?

The Chairman: It would be in...

[English]

You suggested putting it under paragraph (c), didn't you, Mr. Lee? It would read “global heritage and biodiversity”.

I would suggest that we take this when we finish the others so we don't get into confusion. I won't forget.

Ms. Vautour, let's go to NDP-17.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29 and the preamble be amended by replacing line 30 on page 1 with the following:

(b) to present Canada's natural and special heritage in natural parks, national historic sites, marine conservation areas, and related heritage areas through interpretative

I further move that Bill C-29 and the preamble be amended by replacing lines 34 to 36 on page 1 with the following:

Canadian public, thereby giving expression to our identity as Canadians and encouraging stewardship of Canada's natural, environmental and cultural heritage,

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

Mr. Lee.

• 1945

Mr. Tom Lee: On the previous comment, there is an item that is included. The committee may wish to consider it. It could be considered as value added. It's the phrase “encouraging stewardship”.

The possible placement of that would be in paragraph (b) on page 1, at line 34. It would read “thereby enhancing pride, encouraging stewardship and giving expression to our identity as Canadians”. Is that helpful?

The Chairman: We'll just deal with the elements and we'll come back to those. You might like to move those suggestions after Mrs. Vautour has finished so we don't get confused.

So we'll take NDP-17. Are you ready for the questions?

(Amendment negatived)

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29 in the preamble be amended by replacing line 38 on page 1 and lines 1 to 3 on page 2 with the following:

obligations under the World Heritage Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity and other agreements to protect and serve that heritage and natural environment contribute towards the protection and enhancement of global heritage.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: The reference to the World Heritage Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity...we would consider that undertaking is expressed in terms of international obligations. We wouldn't recommend that we start to list them, because this is quite a long list. Only two elements are mentioned here.

The other comment I would make is that in terms of the location of biological diversity in government, it is actually in the Department of the Environment, not with us, so that would present a problem.

The third point I would make, and I'm trying to react in a positive manner, is that we talked this morning about the use of the word “restore”. The restoration clause could be...a word could be inserted in paragraph (c). The revised wording would be as follows: “to carry out Canada's international obligations to protect, conserve, restore and present”.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to repeat the previous comment that we would also be adding to this biodiversity again in the...it all works quite well together.

Mr. Tom Lee: There's two, generally.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think this is a very important concept. We must find a way to put it somewhere. I saw you taking notes, which is reassuring, on proposals that were defeated but to which we will get back later.

Let's not forget that, although we signed the Rio Agreement, nothing much has happened since. The Museum of Nature laid off almost all the scientists who could have done something. It seems to me that Parks Canada, in this area of preserving the environment, has a very important role to play and this should be included somewhere in the preamble. We cannot just drop this aspect. It is crucial to include this in the preamble so that Canadians and Quebeckers can be confident that everything will be done to protect and promote the natural environment.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, to pick up on what Madame Tremblay was saying, you said there was already a reference to international agreements. Are you talking about paragraph (c) to carry out Canada's international obligations?

Mr. Tom Lee: That's right, and I was actually responding very positively to what Madame Tremblay a dit, because this clause does say it is the intention of the agency to carry out Canada's international obligations. We aren't listing them because there are many of them.

To strengthen it we suggest adding one more word, Madame Tremblay, which is after “conserve” to add the word “restore”, which we talked about earlier this morning.

• 1950

So on page 1, at the bottom of the page, paragraph (c), the last line, I suggest that the committee may wish to add a word: “obligations to protect, conserve, restore, and present”.

The Chairman: We are going to deal with the changes you've suggested, Mr. Lee, after we deal with those amendments. I've made a note of them so we won't get confused.

Mrs. Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I guess my last comment would be that in our amendment we are mentioning two but we are also saying another agreement. Is it still a problem with that wording in it?

Mr. Tom Lee: I don't see it as a problem. Where I would insert that is international obligations and agreements.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Vautour, do you have something to add? No. Ms. Tremblay?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I think paragraph (c) needs to be reviewed. Mr. Lee drew my attention on the English text and it is difficult to read since the corresponding paragraph, in French, is not placed opposite. The French paragraph (c), on page 2, is not the same as in English. There is a difference between the two. They don't say exactly the same thing.

The Chairman: The French text will fully reflect the English text. Once we have amended the English text, we will get an exact French translation.

[English]

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Just so I'm clear, is it the legal opinion that there is no significance to naming them, that the fact that they were signatories—and I'm assuming we are to these international agreements—makes us just as liable to the contents of that agreement as if we name it? Is there absolutely nothing added in terms of having to adhere to it more strictly if it's specifically named?

Mr. Henry Schultz: I don't think so. I don't think that adds anything further in the legal obligation.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We'll go to NDP-19. Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I move that Bill C-29 in the preamble be amended by adding after line 11 on page 2 the following:

(f) to recognize Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal tradition and aboriginal connection to place,

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move an amendment to that amendment, a subamendment, if I may. It is that lines 10 and 11 on page 2 be replaced with “including Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions,”.

[Translation]

and on the English side, replace lines 10 and 11 with:

(e) to commemorate places, people and events, including Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions.

The Chairman: If I understand correctly, Mr. Bélanger,

[English]

you would delete “those before European settlement”, and substitute.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's right.

The Chairman: Could you repeat your wording?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The (e) would then read:

to commemorate places, people and events of national historic significance, including Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions.

[Translation]

And in English,

(e) to commemorate places, people and events of national historic significance, including Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions.

[English]

The Chairman: Any comments? Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I don't know if I'm at the right place to comment on this, but the reason we had “aboriginal connection to place” is that with Rick being a Métis himself, aboriginals do have this strong connection to their place, which is why it was added in there. I don't know whether it really makes a difference to have it in there or not. If not, then I would strongly recommend to try to keep it in there.

• 1955

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm proposing this amendment if it's acceptable, if it's ruled in order.

The Chairman: The subamendment is in order; both are in order.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'd be interested in hearing from the officials whether they see any problems, particularly Mr. Schultz, in any of those words.

Mr. Tom Lee: I don't see any problems in the wording Monsieur Bélanger gave. If the committee wishes to consider the connection to place, we recognize that as part of an important aboriginal element.

The Chairman: If that is the case, Mr. Bélanger, would you be adverse to a suggestion of taking your subamendment and saying “Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions and connection to place”?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I would, for the reason that I don't deny there is such a tradition in the aboriginal community, if you will, but it is not exclusive to that community.

[Translation]

The sense of place of French Canadians is pretty strong also. It is almost as if this sense of place, this feeling of belonging, which was translated as “sense of connection to place”—by the way, I'm not sure it is a good translation—, is specific to Aboriginals, while in my view it is not; it also exists in other communities of Canada. This is why I didn't include it.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: May I add something?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Angela Vautour: Having been expropriated from Kouchibouguac National Park, I feel very much still attached to my home, so I can certainly—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Make an argument.

Ms. Angela Vautour: —make an argument, yes. I will have to make a decision here without Rick being here. If we could be causing a problem...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The aboriginal tradition is that sense of place, and it's included in that first statement. But it is not exclusively stated. Therefore other communities

[Translation]

of the country would not feel excluded from this sense of place. It may be a matter of semantics, but it is also one of open-mindedness. That is all.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll just try to reflect what you are trying to say. We say here “to commemorate places”; if we said there “to commemorate places and connection to place”, would that do, or do we just leave it? If we can't get to a consensus, I'll call a vote on the subamendment.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Before we do that, I don't understand, Mr. Bélanger, what your comments are. They don't seem to be consistent with your proposed amendment. I mean, you're saying it's not right to identify one particular group, that everybody has their own connections to place and special meanings and so on. But does your amendment not specify aboriginal traditions?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, it does. This is something we have debated at committee a number of times. You may recall there was some distinct distaste to the words “those before European settlement”. We wanted to find a way to change those words to make more specific reference to aboriginal communities.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: But doesn't that then...?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, no. Reference to exclusivity was to this notion of sense of place. If you attach that particular notion only to aboriginals, you are therefore saying ipso facto that this sense of place may not apply to other communities. I'm telling you, le sens du terroir in the francophone communities is as strong. That's all I'm saying. It's a matter of being respectful and open-minded and open to more than just the aboriginal sense of place. That sense applies to others. I don't think I'm contradicting myself.

The Chairman: I'll recognize Madam Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: I would suggest we could say “to recognize Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal tradition and connection to place” and just take aboriginal out. Maybe Mr. Lee has another suggestion.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I might add to it. The word “including” does not exclude; it brings in. So by saying that, you're giving the opportunity to those who are not aboriginals to feel a part...as well as aboriginals.

• 2000

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay is next, and then we'll move on; otherwise we'll spend all night here.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The wording—it all depends on how it is written—says to commemorate places, people and events. You cannot commemorate a sense of place. You cannot commemorate a feeling. To commemorate is to remember and to celebrate. It's all sorts of things, but the word cannot be used in conjunction with a sense of belonging.

Mr. John Godfrey: We already commemorate places.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes. You can commemorate places, people and events of national historic significance, but not just any ones: those of national historic significance. And, if you want, we can add what you proposed earlier: “including Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions”. It is very simple.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Madame Vautour.

[Translation]

Ms. Angela Vautour: I have lost track.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Ms. Vautour, we have a subamendment by Mr. Bélanger. If you take the text of the law, paragraph (e), instead we're going to delete “those before European settlement” and replace it by including “Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions”. That is it.

I think we're going to move on and vote on it, and people will be free to sort of decide.

(Subamendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now deal with Ms. Vautour's amendment, as amended by Mr. Bélanger.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now deal with amendment NDP-20, I think it is, on page 49.

Ms. Angela Vautour: It is that Bill C-29 be amended in the preamble by replacing line 16 on page 2 with the following:

(h) to maintain or restore the structure and function of marine ecosystems as a prerequisite to the ecologically sustainable,

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: As I indicated, the problem I have with this is that we will be bringing forth the National Marine Conservation Area Act. This has the implication of starting to define a particular element of that act, including the structure and function of marine ecosystems, which, as the committee members will recall, was an item of debate when we were doing the Saguenay bill. I believe it is very much more appropriate that the committee deal with this item when it will be dealing with the National Marine Conservation Area Act.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We'll go on to amendment NDP-21.

Madame Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour: It is that Bill C-29 be amended in the preamble by replacing line 24 on page 2 with the following:

to enjoy Canada's special places,

The Chairman: Would you speak to it, Ms. Vautour, or do you want comments from Mr. Lee?

Ms. Angela Vautour: It's the same thing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If you want to add paragraph (m), that's what you want to do. You're taking the word “and” away because you're trying to add a paragraph (m), so you have to add “and” to paragraph (l).

Ms. Angela Vautour: Thank you. And then to continue, by replacing line 27 on page 2 with the following:

national parks and national historic sites, and

(m) to manage visitor use and tourism to ensure both the maintenance of ecological and commemorative integrity and a quality experience in such heritage and natural areas for this and future generations;

• 2005

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: Mr. Chairman, I believe that if the committee examines some existing wording, they'll see that this is well covered. Paragraph (l) says that commemorative integrity and ecological integrity are a prerequisite to use. So that aspect is covered. It's further covered in paragraph (f), to ensure the commemorative integrity of national historical sites. We've covered the historical as well as the natural, and again in paragraph (k). I believe it is covered.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Lee, I would respectfully submit to you that that could be included in paragraph(1), because it is really nicely put. However, the phraseology isn't easily grasped by ordinary people like us who aren't part of the parks organization.

The greatest concern of most of the people who appeared before us here, and the same fear was expressed with regard to the marine park, is that, because of the need to increase revenues, there might be so many activities that too great a number of visitors will be attracted to the parks.

When you say “to manage visitor use and tourism to ensure the maintenance of ecological and commemorative integrity”, people are obviously going to wonder what all of that means. In essence, it means to manage the use of parks and national historic sites in such a way that visitors aren't so numerous that they compromise the maintenance of the ecological and commemorative integrity of these areas for this and future generations...

It seems to me that including this takes nothing away and would reassure a good many people on the rational use that will be made of parks. This strikes me as a more down to earth text that will have more meaning for people concerned about national historic sites conservation, parks, etc.

I would like to see you show an interest in ensuring that people fully understand your meaning. Unless you change paragraph(1)...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, if the preamble doesn't constitute part of the bill from a legal standpoint, then I see no reason why that could not be incorporated into it without causing legal difficulty.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Especially given the fact, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister met with us, if you remember, he more or less said that one of the challenges for the parks is precisely that: how to strike the right balance between organizing activities that will bring money in while welcoming only moderate numbers of visitors.

What could you accept in there, Mr. Lee?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: I would make one point. In terms of the legislative aspects and the power of law, this is covered under the National Parks Act. There's a clause in the National Parks Act that says in considering the zoning for a national park, ecological integrity shall be the first consideration. So that problem of use has legal foundation and is in the National Parks Act.

Again, I'm trying to be helpful, Mr. Chairman. I suppose the element, the wording, that is interesting to me in here is the relationship between managing visitor use, tourism, and ecology. That is kind of a helpful expression. My mind is working very fast to try to make a suggestion to you, but...

The Chairman: Your mind always works very fast.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a question for the legal adviser,

[Translation]

with your permission, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, yes. Go ahead.

• 2010

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Indeed, what would be the impact, in your opinion, of accepting this amendment?

Mr. Henry Schultz: Legally, it would end up being another point of interpretation if there were ever an issue of whether the agency were properly carrying out its functions.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: What is your suggestion, Mr. Lee? Is it that we present the amendment, or are you prepared to offer some—

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm prepared to accept the amendment. I hope we don't then have to modify any of the other clauses. But the amendment has good wording.

The Chairman: Are you talking about the amendment, both sections, or just the bottom section?

Mr. Tom Lee: You would have to do both.

The Chairman: I understand.

Mr. Tom Lee: Could I ask legal counsel...? My initial reaction is we could insert this and it wouldn't be required that we make any changes in those other paragraphs—(l), (f), and (k).

Mr. Henry Schultz: If you were going to add, you'd add it on to the end of (l).

Ms. Angela Vautour: No, it would be at (m).

Mr. Henry Schultz: If you do it at (m), you're going to have to make a slight amendment, because you have an “and” at the end of (k).

Mr. Tom Lee: That's right, and that's fine.

The Chairman: That's his suggestion.

So we take the amendment, just as it is then, for a vote.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: We now go on to R-7.

Excuse me...

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The little words we had...

The Chairman: Yes, yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Ah, that's further on!

The Chairman: I will ask for unanimous consent to review the three paragraphs of the preamble.

[English]

Section (b), where we'd insert after “thereby enhancing pride”...

Mr. Schultz, could you please follow that so you correct me if I'm wrong, and Mr. Lee.

We'll reopen section (b) on line 34. We'll put a comma.

Mr. Godfrey, could you follow this, please, so that we're all on the same line.

Line 34, after we'll put a comma after “enhancing pride” and insert the words “encouraging stewardship”. Then we'll revisit (c), which will now read, on lines 36 and 37, “to carry out Canada's international obligations”, and we'll insert “and agreements to protect, conserve, restore and present”. Finally, on the same clause, at the end where it says “global heritage”, we'll add “and biodiversity”. That's it.

If that is agreeable, I would like to have a motion to move these three changes.

Ms. Vautour.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Now I'm going to call the preamble as amended.

(Preamble as amended agreed to)

The Chairman: We now move on to R-7, which is a change to establish the Parks Canada Agency, which we have already agreed to. That's automatic.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Page 52 is the same thing.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: NDP-22 is the same thing.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the title as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The title is changed in both languages.

The Chairman: Yes, the title is changed.

• 2015

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Notwithstanding the proposals that have been tabled.

The Chairman: Yes, yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Agreed.

[English]

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.