Bill C-29: The Canadian Parks Agency Act (LS313e)

Sonya Dakers
Science and Technology Division
18 February 1998
Revised 2 June 1998

HOUSE OF COMMONS		SENATE
Bill Stage	Date	Bill Stage	Date
First Reading:	5 February 1998	First Reading:	3 June 1998
Second Reading:	19 March 1998	Second Reading:	15 June 1998
Committee Report:	14 May 1998	Committee Report:	20 October 1998
Report Stage:	1 June 1998	Report Stage:
Third Reading:	2 June 1998	Third Reading:	19 November 1998

On 5 February 1998, Bill C-29: An Act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence, received first reading in the House of Commons. During April and May 1998, the bill was reviewed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. In Committee, Members agreed to change the name of the proposed Agency to the "Parks Canada Agency," and accordingly amended the title of the Act and all references to the name of the Agency in the bill.

Over the past four years, Parks Canada has been working to complete the national parks system and enhance national historic sites and marine conservation areas in a climate of fiscal austerity, and a total budget reduction of $100 million. The rationale for establishing the proposed Parks Agency is that it would simplify organization structures, improve administrative efficiency, and allow more flexible staffing and financial procedures.

Our 38 national parks and 786 historic sites, visited annually by over 24 million Canadians, are among the most important aspects of Canadian identity and are cherished symbols of Canada’s land and history. Bill C-29 is intended to assist Parks Canada in its role of preserving, protecting and expanding Canada’s national parks, historic sites and related protected areas. Government would continue to fund new parks and protect old ones, while users would pay for any personal or commercial benefit they received. Canadians would be invited to participate at least every two years, in advising the Minister on the management direction of these national treasures.

Parks Canada would not, as rumoured, be privatized but would become a separate employer or Departmental Corporation, to be known as the Parks Canada Agency, under Schedule II of the Financial Administration Act. The Agency would be accountable to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who would continue to be responsible for overall direction and ensuring policy implementation. The Agency would be run by a Chief Executive Officer who would be appointed by Cabinet to hold office during pleasure.

The Parks Canada Agency would be established as an Agency of the Crown, reporting to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It would be responsible generally for carrying out the Minister’s mandate to protect the integrity of Canada’s land and marine natural regions and to commemorate natural historic sites. Specific responsibilities would include long-term planning, recommending new parks, and administering and enforcing Acts under its jurisdiction (clauses 3-6).

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Agency would have the power to enter into contracts and agreements, acquire any property by way of gift, bequest or donation, sell, or otherwise dispose of personal property, and to license, or otherwise make available, intellectual property falling under its jurisdiction (clause 8). To ensure that persons interested in Parks Agency matters would be regularly given the opportunity to advise the Minister on the Agency’s performance in carrying out its responsibilities, the government added a new clause 8.1 to the bill at Report Stage. This new clause would require the Minister, at least once every two years, to convene a round table discussion with interested persons on matters related to the Agency’s performance. It also would require the Minister to respond within 180 days to any written recommendations put forward at such a round table. Clause 8.1 is essentially a new-and-improved version of the original bill’s sub-clause 12(4), which would simply have allowed interested persons to provide feedback to the Chief Executive Officer and contained no formal government response mechanism; sub-clause 12(4) was deleted from the bill.

The Agency could sue or be sued (clause 18). The main office of the Agency would be located in the National Capital Region (clause 17). Although Public Works and Government Services Canada could continue to provide some core services, the Agency would be able to procure goods and services from outside the public service, with proper approval (clause 9). It is not clear what this implies in terms of the amount of contracting out involved.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) would be responsible for the management and control of the Agency, under the direction of the Minister, and its day-to-day operations. The CEO would have exclusive authority over staffing matters. Appointed for a five-year, renewable term, the CEO would have Deputy Minister status and powers.

While this is not made explicit in the bill, the Department of Canadian Heritage has indicated that the Agency would operate as a separate employer; provisions in the bill bear this out. Park employees would move from being employees under the Public Service Employment Act to a staffing regime where the CEO had the power to hire and lay-off employees, and set terms and conditions of employment (clause 13). The background material to the bill says staffing would be based on "core public service values" to be detailed in the Agency’s charter; the charter would be made available to the public (clause 16). The Agency would also be required to have a report on its human resources regime prepared independently and made available to the public every five years (clause 35).

All pending competitions, appeals and grievances entered into by employees under the Public Service Employment Act would be carried forward to the new agency under the rules that applied when the process was initiated (transitional clauses 37-44). It would be up to Cabinet to fix the date on which the Agency would be established and on which the new staffing regime would apply (clause 62). The cooperation of unions would be essential for the transition to be smoothly accomplished.

In its new capacity, the Parks Agency would be considered a public service organization under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, with the Treasury Board continuing to play a role in approving the negotiating mandate of the CEO in collective bargaining and grievance procedures (clause 15). Employees would no longer enjoy the same rights as public sector employees to bargain about assignment of duties, appointments or appraisals or grievance procedures, and would be more like private sector employees. On the other hand, they would still not be considered a commercial enterprise coming under the protection of the Canada Labour Code. The CEO may request the Public Service Commission to perform some of the services that organization provides to departments and the commission may recover the costs incurred in doing so (clause 14).

To increase financial flexibility, only one vote would be created for the Agency to include the appropriations for operating all existing parks and sites. Appropriations made for one year could be carried over to the next year and would lapse at the end of the second year (clause 19). A "New Parks and Historic Site Account" would be established in the accounts of Canada for developing existing parks or historic sites or purchasing new ones. The Agency would be able to build up the Account with revenues received from financial transactions or gifts and donations (clause 21). To provide added financial flexibility, the Agency would be able to access advances to the Account from a $10-million statutory appropriation (clause 22).

Approximately 80% of the Agency’s funding would come from tax-based appropriations, with the remaining 20% coming from revenues; this would represent no change from the present. Appropriations would continue to pay for establishing and protecting national parks and historic sites, while users would be expected to pay for the personal or commercial benefit they received.

The Chief Executive Officer would have to prepare an annual corporate plan setting out the objectives, strategies, expected performances and budgets for that period, and looking ahead four fiscal years (clause 33). Every year, a summary of the corporate plan would be tabled by the Minister in Parliament (clause 33). Under an amendment made to this provision by the Canadian Heritage Committee, the plan would be made available to the public upon request after the summary of the corporate plan had been tabled.

The Auditor General would be required to perform an annual audit of Agency finances (clause 36). Informed observers have suggested, in relation to agencies where the public is paying some of the cost, that the Auditor General perform an audit of their cost effectiveness in providing services, to ensure that fees are matched to the actual cost of providing the service.

Although the CEO would have exclusive power to manage the human resource regime of the Agency (clause 13, 4(3)), this is not the case with other aspects of the Agency’s operations. The Minister would still have a large overseeing role (clause 4), which might make the Agency more accountable, but would perhaps constrain its ability to act independently.

In terms of accountability, the Agency would operate as a department. The Minister would continue to be accountable to Parliament and would have authority to approve park policy, management plans, the corporate plan, and the annual report, and fix fees (clauses 23-25, 28, 31-34). Fees set by the Minister could not exceed the costs of providing the service (clause 23). Before fixing fees, the Minister would have to consult with interested parties and publish any changes in the Canada Gazette (clause 25).

The bill would also amend about a dozen other Acts to bring them into conformity with the proposed Act. Changes to the Revolving Funds Act, for instance, would allow that legislation be used for operating Agency enterprises as long as expenditures did not exceed revenues by more than $8 million (clause 61).

Bill C-29, like most new pieces of legislation, is enabling legislation. Although we are given some information in the background material supporting the bill, most of the detail will become clear only at the implementation stage. Jurisdictional disputes have dogged negotiations for the establishment of new parks. It is hoped that the consolidation of park functions under one roof would facilitate future discussions with other levels of government.

The proposed establishment of the Canadian Parks Agency is the latest example of the transfer of federal functions from a department to a quasi-independent agency. Another recent example was the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The intention behind the proposed changes is to deliver services more efficiently in a time of fiscal restraint; nevertheless, there would be costs associated with setting up and operating a new Agency. Introducing a new structure at a time when consumers are expected to bear more of park operation costs might tend to increase the level of fees charged for use of national parks and historic sites. Detail is still lacking on how the transition would be handled, how the Agency would be financed and run, what the administrative cost of operating the Agency would be and what proportion of that cost might be financed by user fees. If the Agency were to misjudge the amount that users would be willing to pay for park services, there could be very serious consequences for its ability to function effectively. The Agency is counting on receiving $70 million from user fees in fiscal year 1997-98 and an increasing amount in subsequent years.

The provisions for involving the public in consultations every two years and making copies of the corporate plan available to the public would appear to represent very positive steps in bringing users into the information loop. Since users would essentially be shareholders, as opposed to stakeholders, in Canada’s national park system, this type of consultation would take on new meaning.

Parks Canada has already unsuccessfully experimented with contracting out some of its services. According to departmental statements, it has decided that privatization of its services is not a popular way to proceed. It is not clear from the legislation, however, the extent to which Parks Canada, in fulfilling its mandate, will rely on contracting out. The public has come to expect a high level of public service from its national parks; it is yet to be seen whether the government trend to run its operations like a business will maintain that reputation.