Karen Sorensen, Alberta.

I’m debating the motion.

I will speak against this amendment. While I completely understand the intent, I think the amendment would expand the minute’s responsibility beyond that which is currently legislated. This amendment could potentially have an impact on natural and cultural resources outside the scope of the Canada National Parks Act, and the proposed subsection 12(3) creates a legal obligation on the minister that’s open-ended and, therefore, difficult to measure.

I want to concur with Mr. Campbell’s comments. The public and other groups already do report environmental emergencies and general concerns around the state of national parks. If it’s known to be polluted in a national park, the superintendent can enforce the powers. I think the intention of this bill is to get enforcement in there under the Canada National Parks Act so these concerns can be enforced. That is where we need Parks Canada to step in.

It’s very hard for me. I’m the sponsor of this bill, but I’m also a resident of a national park. I can assure you that we do round tables every two years where a number of these concerns are discussed. I’ve been at round tables where the minister themself is present. Management plans are long, drawn-out processes where things are checked and co-checked over and over again.

I also want to comment on the education that is given to visitors when they enter a park at the park gates or by the park’s employees around the park. Education is constant and consistent by employees in the national parks, in my experience, and I have visited many. So I do believe visitors are being engaged with. It happens on its own.

I will vote against this amendment. It was hard for me not to smile at Mr. Campbell’s comments about visitor-to-visitor conflict. When somebody is standing on the side of a road trying to take a picture of a mother bear and her cub, I can assure you that people jump out of their cars and tell them to get back into their cars.

Those are my comments as the sponsor and also as a resident of a national park.

No.

Senator Arnot, I was wondering if you would consider splitting this in terms of asking the question and the debate. “31.5 Every person has a duty” — and then splitting out section 3. Respectfully, I can support part of it. I can’t support all of it.

Right. I have got so many pieces of paper over here.

Yes.

I’m just asking if you would consider splitting the votes out.

The chair will have to manage that.

Thank you.

Again, for the benefit of the committee, Senator McCallum and I have had conversations around this. As I said, my amendment agrees with you on your first two points. I guess I am asking if you would either amend your own motion and take that last part out about the tilts, or if you would, as I asked Senator Arnot, split it out. If you want to vote on the tilt piece, would you split out the portion about existing cabins, which I will wholeheartedly support, and then ask a separate question on the establishment of tilts if you want to continue to have that in there?

I’ll also let the committee know, depending upon how these votes go, that I would add a definition after, as a different motion, for existing cabins, because I think it’s important to have a definition in there.

Senator McCallum, I’m not sure how you feel about that.

Can I speak to the amendment?

Again, I do agree with Mr. Campbell’s comments that I think this does happen, but having it in legislation is — it [Technical difficulties] the legislation.

I think this is me.

Just a second, everybody.

Senator Patterson, respecfully, we’re moving forward on the one on cabins.

Yes. This is not the way this was supposed to go down.

Can I just ask another question? I note that there was a law clerk amendment — I think it was before this in my notes. Something about some language. I thought the law clerk was going to make an amendment on page 2 — powers of superintendent and minister. It was housekeeping? There was a worry about subsection and paragraph. No? Okay. Sorry. Never mind.

It’s basically the same amendment.

Senator McCallum and I had very similar amendments, and I know you have just received mine. Could our officials maybe comment on —

Oh, I’m sorry.

Senator McCallum, I certainly support your amendment in terms of getting the words “existing cabins” into the legislation. People have my very similar amendment in front of them now. I had also suggested a definition of “existing cabins” in mine. Maybe we can go through that.

I would like to turn to the officials and ask about the difference between my amendment and Senator McCallum’s amendment when it comes to the establishment and use of “tilt,” which is not something that I had in mind.

I just want to understand that aspect a bit more, and then I may ask you to — I’m not sure. Mr. Campbell or Ms. Cunningham?

Thank you. That would be very helpful.