Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Agreed.

[Translation]

Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?

[English]

I guess the amendment is going in that place, Senator Arnot. We’ll be there later. We will stand it postponed. Agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Okay. Clause 1.

It comes at the end? Okay. Agreed.

Shall clause 2 carry? Page 1.

That’s my amendment. Correct?

What we understood is you wanted to add that one right after the short title.

After clause 1. You have to move the amendment.

I hereby move my amendment, as previously circulated.

It should be read into the record, Madam Chair.

Okay. I move 1.1 —

No, no. Clause 2, page 1. Because it says here that you want to add a 1.1 right after clause 1.

I think that amendment is consequential. If the first one goes through, then it —

Okay. So we won’t postpone clause 1. Will you read your amendment, Senator Arnot?

I move:

That Bill S-14 be amended on page 1 by adding the following before line 6:

“1.1 The Canada National Parks Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 12(2):

(3) The Minister shall encourage 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-governmental organizations.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), Indigenous governing body and Indigenous organization have the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Act.”.

That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 4, on page 2,

(a) by adding the following after line 4:

“31.5 Every person has a duty to take measures to prevent the discharge or deposit in a park of a substance capable of degrading the natural environment, injuring fauna, flora or cultural resources or endangering human health.”;

(b) by replacing line 23 with the following:

“section (2)(b), the superintendent shall order the person”;

(c) by replacing line 25 with the following:

“measures that they are ordered to take, the Minister shall”.

That Bill S-14 be amended in clause 19, on page 23,

(a) by replacing line 26 with the following:

“must order the person to take those measures. If the per-”;

(b) by replacing line 28 with the following:

“take, the Minister must take the measures on behalf of”.

Is it carried? Do you have a comment?

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.

On the amendment, I have the greatest of respect to Senator Arnot’s intent in bringing these amendments forward, but I must say I was persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Campbell that the Parks Canada Agency Act already requires the minister to hold a round table biannually. That, no doubt, would include engagement with Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous organizations, representatives of park communities, members of the academic community and representatives of non-profit and non-governmental organizations outlined in Senator Arnot’s amendment. As the witness told us, that’s already in place. Furthermore, the management plan for each park must be tabled to Parliament, and it includes a consultation table. In that respect, the amendment duplicates what is already required. I have some concern about words like “encouraging,” the minister shall encourage public engagement, and about how that would be measured, if not defined.

With the greatest of respect, I’m hesitant about supporting an amendment that the department says is not necessary and is already built into the Parks Canada Act. It’s unfortunate that these aspirational words were not proposed as an amendment to the preamble or an addition to the preamble of the Parks Canada Act. That’s where I think such aspirational words properly belong. As I say, I do respect Senator Arnot’s intention in putting into law the representations of witnesses, but I think it could cause some confusion and uncertainty, and, yes, even litigation, which I don’t think would be helpful. Thank you.

Any other comments? Senator Arnot.

Colleagues, I understand that the minister has two round tables and that’s really working well, but civil society told us they wanted more engagement and more avenues. They are not satisfied. It’s an enhanced engagement. That’s different than what’s happening. They had a problem with the way it is. They wanted it cured by ensuring that they were engaged in these categories, particularly the academics and the members of civil society, non-profit and non-government organizations. That’s a distinction I was making, Senator Patterson, and that’s why I put it forward. I do believe on some of the other amendments that we have discussed that policy and procedures are where this could be managed by the minister and the ministry, which was a great question that you asked.