(Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

My name is Josée Verner. I am a senator from Quebec, and deputy chair of this committee.

Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

[English]

I will begin with a reminder that, before asking and answering questions, members are asked to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.

I will now ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves.

I’m Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut.

Good morning, I’m Senator Oh from Ontario.

Good morning, Judy White, Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Karen Sorensen, Alberta.

Mary Jane McCallum, Treaty 10, Manitoba.

[Translation]

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from Quebec.

[English]

David Arnot, Saskatchewan.

I wish to welcome all of you and the viewers across the country who are watching our proceedings.

[Translation]

Today, the committee is continuing its examination of Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations (Protecting Canada’s National Wonders Act), through clause-by-clause consideration.

Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a few things. If, at any time, you don’t know where we are in the process, please feel free to ask for clarification. I want to make sure that every one of us knows where we are at all times.

[English]

In terms of the mechanics of the process, I wish to remind senators that when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause. Therefore, before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the opportunity to do so.

Staff will endeavour to keep track of the places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw our attention to them. Since no notice is required to move amendments, it is obviously possible that no preliminary analysis of the amendments has been done to establish which of them may affect or conflict with other clauses.

If any committee members have questions about the process or the propriety of anything that is occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.

The committee is, of course, the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a senator can appeal a ruling to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained. As deputy chair, I will do my best to ensure that all senators who wish to speak can do so. However, I will have to rely on your co-operation in this regard and I would ask you to look at the facts and to speak as briefly as possible.

Finally, I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which, obviously, provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.

Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can now proceed.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations (Protecting Canada’s National Wonders Act)?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Shall clause 6 carry?

[English]

There is an amendment moved by Senator McCallum.

Carried.

Before I begin, I would like to give the floor to Senator Arnot, who has a few questions for the public servants here today, since it relates to the amendments he intended to move.

[English]

Shall clause 6, as amended, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Thank you to my colleagues. I know some colleagues are here today who haven’t been at all of the meetings, so I’ll give context to what I will say. I appreciate that the folks from Parks Canada are here to hear what I have to say and perhaps answer some questions.

Colleagues, the committee heard from several witnesses that our national parks are not just expanses of land, they are fundamentally part of our country’s natural heritage and a legacy that we must hold in trust for future generations. That was very clear. Witnesses also recognized that the Canada National Parks Act is critical to the preservation of our natural landscapes and needs significant updating.

The amendments that I may put forward this morning build in part on a conversation we had with Dr. Lem, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, a very well-known, articulate and strong advocacy group for the protection of Canada’s environment. Particularly, she centred around the need for public engagement and the need to put a positive duty on officials. By positive duty, she meant to provide “shall” and “must” conditions in the act.

With respect to public engagement, in my opinion, she was really talking about civil society — all the organizations that have a stake in preserving our national parks, including — foremost — Indigenous organizations. I think this provides an opportunity to engage the community in a deeper way.

What I’m referring to is actually clause 2, but I have other clauses, and it would be better to put the whole thing into one context. I will put it forward, perhaps. I do know there are concerns, and I know that Mr. Campbell and Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Aubin will address their issues.

Fundamentally, I will perhaps be putting this forward in the clear thesis of trying to foster an inclusion for conservation, particularly in three groups. There is the community engagement from a non-profit or NGO. Our communities are the life of our country, and their involvement in park management is crucial. By engaging local communities, we ensure that the parks will serve their needs and benefit from local knowledge and local commitment — people who are on the ground. That’s the general principle I’m trying to put forward here.

The second group is academics and researchers. The involvement of academics brings a wealth of scientific knowledge and research capabilities. This collaboration is vital for understanding and preserving the ecological integrity of our parks.

Then there are the indigenous participants. Perhaps most importantly, the amendments recognize that the invaluable role of Indigenous organizations and their traditional knowledge and deep connection to the lands are indispensable in our conservation efforts.

The path forward here with this amendment that I may propose demonstrates a commitment to a more inclusive, knowledgeable and sustainable approach to conservation. Again, our national parks are not just parcels of land. They are a testament to our respect for nature, our dedication to preservation and our commitment to future generations. I have one amendment. There is a second very consequential amendment — it’s just legal draftsmanship.

Then there are two other amendments, and that is putting forth the idea of the positive duty. When I get a chance, I’ll speak to them, if necessary, but I would just remind my colleagues that the third and fourth amendments require the national park visitors to proactively avoid causing harms, disturbances or degradation to the environment or animals in the park, and they place a duty on the officials to take obligatory action. They do this either by the use of the word “shall” or by the word “must” so they are obliged to do so.

These amendments are intended to ensure the preservation of the ecological integrity in the park. They are intended to support sustainable tourism. Tourism is not just a buzz word. It’s a necessity. By requiring visitors to minimize their impact, we ensure that these natural treasures remain unspoiled for future generations. The concept of “leave no trace” is globally recognized as the standard for outdoor ethics, and it emphasizes the importance of leaving the environment as one finds it, ensuring its longevity and continued enjoyment. So that’s a second principle behind why I’m putting these forward.

The educational value is the third issue. Proactively protecting the environment and wildlife in natural parks serves an educational purpose. It teaches visitors, especially younger generations, about the importance of conservation and respect for nature. Educational programs and guidelines can foster deeper understanding and appreciation of natural ecosystems, encouraging responsible behaviour.

The fourth principle is cultural and spiritual significance. As we know, many national parks hold significant cultural and spiritual value, particularly for Indigenous communities. Respecting these spaces to avoid harm is not just an environmental issue but a matter of cultural sensitivity and respect and, in my opinion, an element of reconciliation in the current context. Engaging with Indigenous groups to educate visitors about the cultural significance of these lands can enhance respect and understanding, leading to more conscientious behaviour by the whole community.

Wildlife well-being, I won’t remark much on that. I think it’s fairly straightforward. We need to protect the wildlife, obviously, from stress-related things that happen to wildlife if there is negative interaction with human activity.

Legal and ethical responsibility. Visitors to the park have a legal and ethical responsibility to protect the natural environment. National parks are public assets, and damaging them is akin to damaging a shared heritage. Laws and regulations in place to protect these areas underscore the collective agreement and the legal framework that prioritize conservation.

Economic implications is a seventh principle behind what I’m trying to put forward, and that is the degradation of parks would have significant economic implications negative to all principles that support the national parks system.

In summary, requiring visitors to proactively avoid harm to the environment and animals in the park is essential for ecological education, cultural, ethical and economic reasons.

Now, I have said all that to say this: I committed to Dr. Lem to put this forward. She raised the idea that she wanted to ensure that there was a positive duty on the minister to engage with civil society, and she felt that was a deficit, as did the academic witness who followed her. I can’t remember his name right now, but he supported the same notion. It’s that noble principle. We want the ministry and the minister to have access. We want those people in civil society and all of the organizations, including Indigenous organizations, to feel that they have access and that their views are valued. Of course, it was clear that Dr. Lem thought that was not the case and asked our committee to consider making an amendment to that nature, and that’s why I would put this forward, subject to our discussion with these witnesses here today.

I can say, I met with officials from the ministry’s office with Senator Sorensen last night, and I thought most of these issues were well discussed. However, early this morning, I found out that Parks Canada had concerns, and I thought the only way to address them was to allow the witnesses to respond and let my colleagues decide what they think.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Are there guidelines for people visiting any Parks Canada facility? I was going to ask the officials to explain what Senator Arnot is doing with the amendment, because those principles, I assume, are already in the Parks Canada handbook for visitors to the park. Maybe you can take it one step further.

Would you like us to respond?

Well, Mr. Campbell, you have indicated that you have concerns. My principal point here is that the amendment that will come up as number 2 says that the minister shall encourage — that’s the verb — public engagement in safeguarding Canada’s natural and cultural resources, including engagement by Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous organizations, representatives of park communities, members of the academic community, and representatives of non-profit and non-government organizations.

There is a reason Dr. Lem put this forward. She doesn’t feel that’s the case, and that is why this amendment is being put forward. She wants to be assured that there is an avenue and that the avenue is a two-way street, and apparently she doesn’t because she testified to that effect. So what’s wrong with this?

Thanks, Senator Arnot.

I should say I’m not actually sure where you got the idea that I didn’t like the sentiment in it or those sorts of things, because certainly the sentiment is something that already exists in the actions of Parks Canada. Already the Parks Canada Agency Act has a requirement for the minister on a biannual basis to have a ministers’ round table where, in fact, these types of civil society, by definition, must be invited to the ministers’ round table to give input on the entire system that we have, so on all cultural resources that are under our responsibility and on all natural areas that are under our responsibility as well. So from that perspective, the Parks Canada Agency Act, which is the umbrella act over the Canada National Parks Act that has us moving forward, includes that as a portion of the legislation already.

The other thing that we have that must be tabled every 10 years in Parliament — so an actual parliamentary document — is the management plan for every one of the parks. In that management plan, there is a consultation duty within that, and again, consultation for all of these similar organizations, so that two-way back-and-forth; and then the document itself, having the weight of it being a parliamentary document is the other portion of that from where we see hopefully meeting what the witness had said.

The only issue that Parks Canada would have with the amendment as written is the fact that it’s expansive and very difficult for us to be able to take. It would be difficult to say if this has actually happened or not and what the remedies would be if it had not happened. It’s more on the legal side and not on the aspirational side. We share in your same aspiration to have that back-and-forth conversation with civil society. Obviously, it’s a duty, and a constitutional duty in many instances with Indigenous people where we have treaties or agreements, including Indigenous benefits agreements as well.

Those types of considerations we feel are already in there, but certainly from an aspirational perspective, senator, we share in your same aspiration with that. On the “shall,” the duty, that is the action we take today, but if it’s in legislation, that is the decision of legislators, not ourselves.

I don’t see a downside to the minister or the ministry in this amendment because it’s fairly open-ended, and the minister can decide, or some other person, I guess, whether he is encouraging public engagement. You said the minister, whoever it is, is always doing that. So what is the downside? It gives comfort to civil society, perhaps Indigenous organizations and bodies that, in the future, they will be engaged if they feel that they haven’t been in the past. Obviously, from the testimony, some do feel that way. That’s why they asked me to put this forward.

I don’t know whether getting into debate — that is as the individual felt. From our perspective on the enforceability or the direction of it, I think we’re already following that.

The second burden is that it includes all natural and cultural resources in the country. That would be expanding within the Canada National Parks Act, because right now, everything within the act is bound by those things the minister has responsibility for. This would extend that outside of the areas that are within national parks and national marine conservation areas, I’m assuming.

So Canada’s natural and cultural resources that are inside the national parks would be something you could accept?