HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 31, 2000

• 1834

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is meeting to study Bill C-27,

[Translation]

relating to An Act Respecting the National Parks of Canada.

[English]

First I would like to welcome our new members, replacement members. We really appreciate your presence; it's really helping us.

If you will recall, yesterday we had got to clause 69. We had passed the clauses up to clause 69. So the first clause we have to deal with is clause 70, and we are considering amendment G-27.

• 1835

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): First, I officially move this amendment, the object of which is to ensure that there is concordance between the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act which was recently amended when Bill C-10 was passed.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any comments or questions from members about G-27?

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like to emphasize that we couldn't make this change before Bill C-27 was tabled because Bill C-10 had not yet been passed.

[English]

The Chair: Is that clear? The reason is that the bill providing for these provisions hadn't been adopted when the actual Bill C-27 was tabled. That's why we need the amendment.

Are you ready for the question on G-27?

An hon. member: Question.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The clerk points out to me that clause 70 wasn't amended. In fact that was a new clause, 70.1. So could we just go back to clause 70?

(Clause 70 agreed to)

(On clause 71—Coming into force)

The Chair: We'll now look at clause 71 and amendment G-28 of the government.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is a technical amendment. It is consequential to the preceding amendment we carried to add clause 70.1.

[English]

The Chair: It speaks for itself very clearly. I call the question on amendment G-28.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 71 as amended agreed to)

(On schedule 1)

The Chair: We have an amendment to schedule 1, which is amendment G-29.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada): Mr. Chairman, this is an addition of land to Mount Revelstoke National Park. It's 260 acres. It was purchased a number of years ago, and it's simply adding a parcel to the park.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Sorry, it's adding what?

Mr. Tom Lee: It's adding a parcel of 260 acres, which was private land that was purchased a number of years ago. It's adding it to the park.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Just for clarification, the several pages of description that comprise G-29 are all describing that?

Mr. Tom Lee: That's been altered, yes, to include this parcel.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Schedule 1 as amended agreed to)

(On schedule 2)

The Chair: We'll now look at schedule 2, government amendment G-30.

Monsieur Bélanger.

• 1840

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, there are two amendments that are overlapping here.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me. I've just been informed that amendment G-30 has been replaced by a new G-30.

Has it been circulated? Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd especially like to address our colleague from the Bloc Québécois who tabled amendment BQ-23 dealing essentially with the same matter. In light of the consultations held today, it appears that if we want to respond to the legitimate demands in motion BQ-23 and motion G-30, we could arrive at another definition which is the one we've handed you. If my colleague is satisfied, we would be willing to put this forth as an amendment. In my opinion, this motion answers all the expectations of the people from Mingan and clarifies the government's intent. I'd like to hear our colleague's reaction. Has he seen it? I only got it tonight.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): What is the difference between the two?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We will explain that.

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière (Counsel, Parks Canada, Heritage Canada): There is no substantive difference. We simply wanted to make it easier to understand.

The notaries and legal experts at Justice revised all the proposals and agreed that BQ-23 was useful because it mentioned the ordinary high-water mark. If you exclude lands, it's not necessary to mention the ordinary low-water mark as we did. It's actually far more logical to only mention the ordinary high-water mark.

However, they were concerned that the expression “for greater certainty, all those parcels or tracts of land described above includes all that foreshore” might lead to confusion because the intent was exactly to exclude the foreshore. Someone reading the provisions of the bill quickly might be led to believe that the foreshore is included in the park and that the land covered by the water is excluded. If you don't read the wording too attentively, you might think there's a contradiction in the statement.

The notaries and legal experts thus submitted a new motion that simply says that the land beyond the ordinary high-water mark is excluded. It is a very simple and very clear wording where the low-water mark is not mentioned contrary to what the initial government proposal held. We wanted to simplify the wording and make sure the wording was very clear. The substance remains the same.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I'm happy to hear you confirm that what I thought was right, in other words that the two wordings are equivalent. The foreshore is the part that is covered by water until the tide gets to the ordinary high-water mark where it leaves the sea alluvion which is what has been pushed up there. So the two wordings are equivalent.

However, I would like to point out that on page 124 of the bill, you're using exactly the wording I produced in my motion. So I didn't invent it. If there's confusion here, you might want to amend page 124 where it says:

Firstly:

All those parcels or tracts of land, together with all that foreshore or land covered by water lying above the ordinary high- water mark...

We were told it was equivalent. That was your text and I thought it was very clear. However, if you want to clarify it even further, I see no problem. The same thing is being said. The good reasons you gave for Mingan could also apply very well to the Queen Charlotte Islands. I leave that as a thought.

• 1845

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: Thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do I understand that new amendment G-30 agrees with you?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: New amendment G-30 says, with different words, what we were saying in BQ-23 and what you were saying in old amendment G-30. That's what I understand.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I move that new amendment G-30 carry.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The new and improved version.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: The longer I've listened to this conversation, in a sense the more confused I've become.

First of all, I'll make it clear that the new amendment G-30 is the one I prefer. That is clearly the legal language that would be used on the west coast. I don't know about convention in other parts of the country. Everyone knows what ordinary high-water mark is on the west coast. But the way I think I heard you describing foreshore was that it was lands covered by water that were below the ordinary high-water mark. That is not the way I understand foreshore at all. I consider quite a definite definition legally, which is that foreshore may or may not include lands below high-water mark. In other words, it will also include lands above high-water mark.

[Translation]

Ms. Lucie Bourbonnière: With this wording, we wanted to exclude all the land beyond the high-water mark. In the government's proposal, the words "estran" in French

[English]

and “foreshore” in English were used. When we took a second look at this proposal, we found that in fact it was not clear. That's why we felt that in part what was proposed by the Bloc motion was quite a valid suggestion.

The estran is considered to be the land that is situated below the high-water mark and above the low-water mark, so it's a strip of land. Since we were basically setting the limits of the park, we felt it wasn't necessary to speak of the lower extremities of les estrans. For that reason we felt it would lead to confusion, and it would be much simpler to simply refer to the high-water mark.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, I think you'll run into less difficulty with the federal-provincial jurisdictional question, wherever that applies, by retaining the high-water mark distinction, certainly on the west coast.

The Chair: Could I ask, to follow up on what Mr. Duncan said, if the description on the Queen Charlottes will be changed to be the same as the one on Mingan, because from what he is suggesting, foreshore might go beyond the high-water mark.

Mr. John Duncan: It would be above wherever the water is at the current moment.

Mr. Tom Lee: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. This description is included in the federal-provincial agreement. We cannot change it without the agreement of the province.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Here, the difference is that there is no federal-provincial agreement on this one, because it's an outright purchase.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, but we're coming up to Pacific Rim Park here.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Let's finish with this one first.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, fair enough.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

The Chair: Amendment BQ-23 is withdrawn.

[English]

I will now call amendment G-31.

• 1850

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure it's in the record, I would ask that we specify the line that this amendment changes.

[Translation]

Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Legislation and Policy Directorate, Parks Canada, Heritage Canada): In the French version of amendment G-31, the third line should read “pages 116 à 124” rather than “page 116.”

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: As is done in the English version. Thank you. It's only a technical detail we're raising in order to ensure you that no error will be found in the record.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Are we talking about G-31 or BQ-23?

The Chair: BQ-23 falls away because of the adoption of G-30. BQ-23 is not moved. We're talking about G-31.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I'd again like to ask Mr. Lee to give a technical background on this.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: We discovered, in reviewing the legal description as we had prepared it, that there was an ancient survey error. The survey error had the effect of incorporating, within the boundaries of the park, part of an Indian reserve. This is an historic error. It's a relatively small parcel.

We had to amend the description to make sure the land did not go into the park.

(Amendment G-31 agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Schedule 2 as amended agreed to)

(Schedules 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: We'll now go back to clause 1, which describes the short title of the act, the Canada National Parks Act.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I think we have completed our work. Thank you very, very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.