Debates of June 2nd, 1998

Business Of The House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill withdrawn)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Parks Canada Act

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on Bill C-29. The rationale for establishing the proposed parks agency is that it would simplify organizational structures, improve administrative efficiency and allow more flexible staffing and financial procedures.

The bill does not seek to privatize Canada's parks, but the administration would become a separate employer or departmental corporation to be known as the Canadian parks agency.

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.

From Cape Spear, Newfoundland to Pacific Rim National Park, more than 38 national parks and 786 historic sites visited annually by 24 million Canadians are among the most important aspects of Canadian identity and are cherished symbols of Canada's land and history. Of these, 12 Canadian locations have such outstanding universal value that they have been designated as UNESCO world heritage sites.

The creation of the new parks agency will result in three key benefits, benefits which will ensure continued excellence of stewardship for the precious heritage now entrusted to Parks Canada.

The Parks Canada agency will be an autonomous organization accountable to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and in turn to parliament, an organization able to make needed decisions in a more timely fashion at less cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

The new agency will be able to deliver continued cost effective and efficient services to visitors to the national parks, historic sites and other related protected heritage areas.

The Parks Canada agency will have new financial authorities and flexibilities to retain and reinvest revenues. These will allow appropriations to be used to create new national parks, national historic sites and related protected heritage areas throughout the country.

The mandate of the program will not change after the new entity comes into existence. The legislation creating the new agency will support and will possibly strengthen the existing mandate. The Parks Canada agency will be in a better position to continue to maintain the current systems of national parks, national historic sites and other related protected heritage areas.

It will continue to provide a high level of service to park and site visitors and will work toward the completion of the national parks system and toward the expansion of a system of national historic sites and national marine conservation areas, and continue to preserve and maintain the natural ecosystem of the parks which is constantly renewing itself in order to survive.

This is why we are bringing in the new Parks Canada agency into existence. Canada's parks service is the oldest in the world with a distinguished history and a promising future. The creation of this agency is an important step forward, one which will ensure that we satisfy our obligations to Canadians and to the world to protect and to conserve our most enduring and cherished symbols.

As the past president of the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, I am a strong advocate of the need to preserve our national parks and the important role they play in the lives of Canadians. They provide an oasis for vacationing families as well as provide unlimited outdoor recreation for the avid campers and nature lovers in Canada. From mountain climbing in Banff and Jasper to bird watching at Point Pelee, Canadians are enjoying all the benefits our parks have to offer.

In turn, Canadians gain a greater appreciation of our country and its natural beauty. Our national parks are indeed a national treasure. They link us to our history, our heritage and the Canadian landscape.

In 1885, about 25 years before the Americans, Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, created North America's first national park, Banff National Park in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta. Banff remains one of Canada's premier and most loved national treasures. Its natural beauty and resources must be preserved for generations to come.

By passing Bill C-29, we in the House of Commons can ensure the renewal of the organization that Canadians have entrusted with their cherished national parks, national historic sites and other protected heritage areas.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think now is probably an appropriate time to get unanimous consent to submit the petitions that have been given to me by gun owners and other concerned Canadians on the repeal of Bill C-68.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this legislation. Some things I will be discussing shortly that are of concern to me within the legislation but let me be perfectly clear. As the heritage critic for the Reform Party and with my colleague, the Reform Party parks critic, we recognize fully the value of the national parks system to Canadians and to Canada.

The Reform Party is committed to ensuring that we have national parks today and into the future for our children and for our children's children, that there be proper protection for the environment and the ecology around all our national parks. Our party is very committed to the entire concept of environmental responsibility for generations to come.

This is a good piece of legislation in that it simplifies and makes more efficient the delivery of services. I quote from the Montreal Gazette today, an article entitled “MPs vote to keep parks bilingual”. The article states: “Several MPs feared that the new agency which will contract work out rather than use public servants will jack up entrance fees to make national parks into a money making operation”.

I have four national parks in my constituency. I work with the superintendents and I work with the people who are delivering the services to Canadians from top to bottom in those park organizations. I know that is an absolutely false concern. The concern is to continue to deliver a high level of service and protection of parks at reasonable cost.

I outlined in debate between me and an NDP member an actual case in my constituency creating a contract with a person who is now a former park employee. Painting and maintaining signs in our parks, in Kootenay National Park, is now delivered in a far more cost effective way while this individual is much more involved in his own life. This individual has his own business, he is delivering a commercial service. Now rather than being a park employee drawing wages from Parks Canada, he is delivering services to Parks Canada as a contractor.

This is a far more efficient way of working. This former employee now being in his own business is now in a situation where he becomes a taxpayer generating more work and more wealth in commerce. He has just delivered a couple of massive signs, excellent work, to my community of Wasa Lake, British Columbia.

This concern the NDP has is really unfortunate because having had the great opportunity to work with supervisors, management and hourly workers in our parks, I have discovered a core of Canadians committed to our parks. Because of the bungling by this and the former government, there has been a very serious downloading of concern and responsibility to people who were committed to the parks on one hand but on the other hand parks did not seem to be committed to them.

I look forward to this new agency as being a way of being able to straighten this out, and we are going to be able to bring some order to the management of parks. I think that is excellent.

However, I would be remiss if I did not mention the bit of silliness that was brought to this act by the member for Ottawa—Vanier and his colleague from Brossard—La Prairie.

There is a concept of law that it is bad law to put into law something that already exists. It is not only redundant, it is bad law.

By these two members' bringing forward this motion in committee that was accepted, what fundamentally happened was they brought forward something that already existed. If it did not exist what would have happened? Contrary to what the member said earlier in debate, people delivering services in the new Saguenay park, for example, who might be working on wharfs, I do not care in what language they speak to each other on the job or at home, there is no requirement for those people to be able to speak English.

Conversely, when one goes out west there is no necessity for somebody collecting garbage and cleaning up the campsites to be able to speak French. They put a piece of mischief into this legislation, albeit with every good intention. It was totally and absolutely unnecessary.

To prove the point that it was unnecessary, the top law maker in Canada, the justice minister, said this amendment was not only unnecessary but dangerous. Their colleague, the justice minister of Canada, the top law maker, said that what they did with this legislation was unfortunately a bit of a buffoonery.

It is all very well and good to stand on their bilingual high horse and try and lob salvoes at us in the Reform Party. I guess that is part of the political game the Liberals like to play. The reality is there is absolutely no necessity for this. What did the Liberals do? Last night the Reform Party came forward with an amendment. The amendment said strike this unnecessary amendment created in committee. But in order to save face they asked all their sheep to line up and vote in favour of saying that the Official Languages Act applies to this piece of legislation. Guess what? It already applies to this piece of legislation. It was simply a piece of face saving. The justice minister saw that these people had put this piece buffoonery into the legislation. Unfortunately once again the Liberal sheep lined up on the side of trying to save face.

The reality of the situation is this. This piece of legislation, notwithstanding that one silliness, has the very real potential to create efficiencies in the delivery of service and in the protection of our national parks. That is what the Reform Party is about. I believe that is what all members of this House are about, to create an environment of protection of the parks.

Let me add one caveat. The concern I have is that if we are not very careful in the way we apply protection to these parks, we have the potential to end up with a situation of making them the exclusive playground of rich people. That would be an absolute shame. I hope one of the first things Parks Canada would be taking a look at, before or after this legislation, is the whole issue of entry fees, the way the entry fees are applied to not only local residents but to individuals and automobiles.

We must be very careful while being fiscally prudent, which is what the Reform Party is all about, at the same time making sure we do not make our national parks a playground that only the rich can afford to come to.

On balance, clearly this is a good piece of legislation. My party will be supporting it with great enthusiasm.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend brought up a number of excellent points. He brought up bilingualism.

There is something called an opportunity cost. If we remove funds from one place and put them into another, we had better make sure we are getting more bang for our buck in the place we put them in than in the place we took them out of.

The government's proposal is to force subcontractors to become bilingual and ensure money is being put into something. One questions as to whether or not it is going to get the returns necessary. This is in view of the fact that today our parks are under siege and many species are being threatened or becoming extinct.

Does my hon. colleague feel that the money the government is planning to use to force subcontractors to become officially bilingual could be better utilized in another area for preserving our parks?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the answer to that question is yes.

The situation is even more confused than what the hon. member has outlined. It is confused because of this face-saving attempt the Liberals made last night.

It is unclear what this redundant clause will actually mean in enforcement. The legislation was originally set up to come under the Official Languages Act which means that the delivery of services to individuals must be in both official languages. That is the way this bill was created. It is the intention of this bill. That is what the members of my caucus are in favour of which is fine.

The problem came when the members went overboard and brought in this piece of puffery. The problem is that it then appeared as though the painters, the garbage collectors, the people working on park benches, the people who are not actually verbally delivering services to the visitors to the parks were going to have to take French or English lessons depending on what their mother tongue was. If they were recent immigrants to the country and were still working on mastering either of the official languages, they might even have to take time out of their contract to become fluently bilingual, which of course is the height of idiocy.

What we have now as a result of the face-saving exercise the Liberals went through last night, is that we simply do not know the answer to the member's question. It is a perfectly valid question. We do not know what impact this is going to have. It just shows that there are times when it is good to bring forward amendments and there are other times like this when those amendments are problematic, troublesome and just create confusion.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am finding it almost unbelievable that people from across Canada and from almost every province are giving me petitions to present and I am not allowed to properly present them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville does not have to go any further. Does the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville have the unanimous consent of the House to present petitions?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member does not have unanimous consent.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe it would be helpful if the Speaker could explain to the hon. member that he does have the opportunity to deposit his petition at the clerk's table without having this show.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House is forever indebted to the hon. parliamentary secretary for his pearls of wisdom. We will resume debate.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill C-29, the Parks Canada act.

There are problems today in our parks, from endangered species to threatened habitat to species that are becoming extinct. The mark the World Wildlife Fund has given the Canadian government is a D in its behaviour and activities toward protecting our species, the flora and fauna that inhabit our wonderful country. And today the government is pursuing a bill which deals with such absurdities as making subcontractors in our parks become bilingual. Is it necessary? The answer is no.

If the purpose of language is communication, if the purpose of language is to make people understand each other, clearly bilingual services are necessary in certain areas. It is probably not necessary for the people who clean our parks, who work in our parks in many areas, who fix our parks on a contractual basis in construction. I fail to see where those individuals need to be bilingual. The government has simply not presented an idea of why that is so.

Looking at the parks, one of the biggest problems is that of resources as all industries and ministries have. As a result of a lack of resources and as a result of a lack of leadership, a major problem is that thousands of Canadian species are threatened or will become extinct. From the Vancouver Island marmot to the eastern cougar, to the Mississauga rattlesnake, to the northern right whale, all of these species and many, many others are threatened with potential extinction.

There are many solutions that we have to these problems. I will get into those a little bit later.

The money that the government will be using to force people to become bilingual could be put into other areas such as paying for enforcement officers and conservation officers and better equipment and surveillance measures for them. That would have a much more powerful effect on our parks in ensuring that the habitats of today will be there tomorrow. Instead, the government wants to pour money into a useless and futile attempt to make parks subcontractors bilingual.

There are many problems within our own areas, including the threatened extinction of many species. A situation that many people are not aware of is that Canada is a major conduit for threatened species' animal parts. The Siberian tiger, the Bengal tiger, the clouded leopard, endangered birds, animals and plant life, Canada is a major conduit for dispersing these parts from our country to other areas. It is contributing to the decimation of the population of various subspecies of tiger in other parts of the world, particularly in Asia; the decimation of the black rhino, the Javan rhino, the Sumatran rhino, the clouded leopard, the snow leopard and on and on it goes. Canada is partly responsible for that, not because of our enforcement officers, but because they do not have the resources to do their jobs.

Furthermore, there is the current situation with respect to our law. While our law provides for some serious penalties, those penalties are not being enforced. What kind of message does that give to potential poachers? It says that they can knock off those bears and send their gall bladders to other parts of the world because they know if they get caught they will only get their wrists slapped. That is an embarrassment to our country.

Furthermore, the reason poachers and people who sell wild animal and endangered species' parts all over the world are using Canada is that we have a large border, but also that our enforcement measures are wholly inadequate. They are wholly inadequate because of a lack of resources.

There are other issues we have to deal with. The current legislation protects habitat. Habitat loss is the most important aspect of why species are becoming extinct. The federal government is not taking the leadership role to work with the provinces to make sure that larger tracts of land are being protected.

Animals and birds do not know provincial boundaries. They do not know where the line is drawn between Alberta and British Columbia. These animals need to be protected on a number of levels. It requires federal and provincial leadership in order to do that. The only time we have seen effective conservation measures being put in place is when provincial leaders have taken the bull by the horns and enacted some kind of legislation to protect them. We have seen an utter absence of leadership in this government and the previous government in trying to adjust the situation.

Here are some solutions. First, stop the forced bilingualism issue that my colleagues have spoken about before.

Second, the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act needs strengthening. It is absolutely weak and as a result our species are paying the penalty.

Third, Cosewic is a group of independent scientists. It should be used to identify the plants and animals threatened with potential extinction which need our protection.

Fourth, we can look at other programs around the world where they have used their parks and their wild spaces to generate funds which they then pour back into their parks for expansion and preservation. This strengthens their ability to preserve the flora and fauna within their boundaries.

The golden lion tamarin, a beautiful little monkey in Central America, was becoming extinct. The Belize government made the park in which the monkeys live pay for itself through aggressive marketing. The park managed to save that species and many other species within that park. It prevented the encroachment of surrounding people and expanded the park. The moneys generated from the park went toward funds for health care, clean water and education of the surrounding people. The people benefited from the park in a tangible fashion which enabled them to act as a buffer zone to protect against poaching in the park.

We can apply that same lesson. We can use our parks in a sensible, environmentally sound way to generate funds. Rather than going toward general revenues and having the Minister of Finance spend the funds who knows where, we could ensure that at least a significant portion of those funds was poured back into the parks department for expansion and protection of the habitat for many species. There is a lack of funds. This would be a very pragmatic way for the parks to generate the necessary funds for their own preservation. It could be done in a sensible way without destroying the parks at all. We have seen where this has been done in places around the world.

Fifth, we have to ensure the penalties we have on the books are severe and that they are applied to those people who commit crimes such as poaching and trafficking in endangered species.

Sixth is the aspect of differential fees. My colleague and others in the House have mentioned that it is a sham to charge the same fees for all people. Other parts of the world have differential fees for tourists and for domestic individuals. Tourists pay more. Domestic individuals who reside in the area pay nothing or very little to come and go from their parks. This model works. It is absurd to have the same fee for those who live in the park, for those who come and go from the park and for those who reside in the area. It will hamstring the ability of the parks to generate revenues which could be used to preserve the parks.

There is an enormous challenge in front of us. The preservation of wild habitats and animal species is not an esoteric intellectual argument. The pragmatic reason for it is that many species harbour direct benefits to human beings through medicine.

On a philosophical basis, what has been given to us we have a right to give to others. The fact that many species are becoming extinct, particularly amphibians, is a cold hard indicator that our ability, our environment, our survival as a species could be compromised. Many of the species in this world are harbingers of things to come. What happens to them may ultimately happen to us.

I ask that the federal government take a leadership role with respect to the parks department. I ask that it take a leadership role with respect to our endangered species and develop and put forth pragmatic solutions which already exist in Canada to try to preserve the wild animal species, the flora and fauna and the wild spaces within Canada.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena.

I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-29, the parks Canada agency act. My Reform colleagues and I are committed to having our national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner. We support the concept of cost recovery, but at the same time fees should not be levied at such a level that would deter people from using the parks. The national parks, after all, belong to the people of Canada.

The people of Dauphin—Swan River are fortunate to have a national park located in the centre of their riding. It is a beautiful park, possibly 70 miles by 30 miles, and is within an hour's drive for all residents of the riding.

The area that I would like to concentrate on in this brief time is the area of accountability.

Bill C-29 states that the agency will report directly to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, in turn, will be accountable for its activities before parliament. Current mechanisms to ensure responsible public dialogue and accountability will be enhanced. I agree with that objective, but I will say that from my experience with Parks Canada we have a long way to go before that occurs.

A bi-annual review or forum of stakeholder groups will be conducted to provide an opportunity for public dialogue.

What I would like to do at this time is to relate my experiences regarding the national park located in my riding and basically talk about the process of consultation. I hope that with a new Parks Canada Agency Act the same mistakes will not be made.

Several years ago Parks Canada took on the task of restructuring the organization. The first thing it did was to notify the public and the stakeholders in my riding that it was going to hold meetings, which it did. As a former mayor of Dauphin I attended. Lo and behold, when the report came out, guess what happened? It forgot about listing the town of Dauphin. In fact, I complained about this very issue, but to no avail. It is obvious that in the report the meeting that was held in Dauphin was not there. Obviously we did not have a meeting. We had a meeting, but we really did not have a meeting. Surely this type of behaviour is unacceptable.

I hope this is not the way the new parks agency will conduct its consultations. By the way, the final report did not completely reflect the views of the stakeholders of the region. What it did reflect were the views of the parks officials and the bureaucrats.

The common point of view was that this consultation process was exercised so that Parks Canada could cut jobs. This it certainly did after the report was released.

Who will be the watchdog of the new Parks Canada Agency? Who will make sure that the consultations will not be a repeat of my own experience?

I would like to read a paragraph from a letter written by a 15 year employee of the park who resigned due to this reorganization. This individual had experienced many wonderful years in the employ of Parks Canada, except for his last couple of years. He states in his letter:

However, due to many reasons, both work oriented and personal, I feel that my services are no longer beneficial for myself or the department. It has become very clear to me that my health has diminished and the stress level I am experiencing is intolerable. I have honestly persevered for approximately two years whereby specific individuals engaged in activities that I feel are not only legally unacceptable, but also morally unacceptable. As a result, the working environment has suffered considerably. Therefore I am unable to work in the conditions that now exist within my department. The low staff morale, the high double standards, unfair favouritism, lack of respect and authority along with the continual individual personal attacks on myself and others is beyond control.

It is my hope that the new parks agency will deal with its personnel in a more rational manner. I say again, who will be the watchdog of this new parks agency? The legislation says that it will report to the minister. Big deal. What does that mean? If the minister does not care to take an interest, where do we go from there? This has already happened in my experience in dealing with Parks Canada.

Another area I would like to talk about is cost recovery. I agree that we need to practise this principle. Even here there are limitations. The Wasagaming Chamber of Commerce is concerned that at this time the concept of cost recovery is exercised beyond what is reasonable. It is not considered reasonable for the park to charge local residents who live nearby when they enter the park to buy an ice cream cone.

The chamber of commerce is very concerned when the town site of Riding Mountain National Park is compared to the town site of Banff National Park. Obviously we cannot compare those two different places. There is probably no town site that could be compared to Banff National Park.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird of the Keesikownan Indian Reserve has concerns that they will not be considered as stakeholders in any future discussions with the new parks agency. A portion of Chief Blackbird's reservation is inside the boundary of the Riding Mountain National Park.

The town of Dauphin is also concerned about the new agency because of the water supply. Their water supply comes from the park. They were there before the park came into existence. Obviously they should have some historical rights to water.

Another concern is the decision of Parks Canada to clear cut 80,000 mature white spruce trees from inside the boundaries of the national park. Has anyone ever heard of that, cutting down 80,000 mature white spruce trees inside a national park in this country? I thought parks were to preserve our forests.

Once in a while we hear the threat from Parks Canada that it will charge users of the provincial trunk highway, which travels north and south through the national park. It is a direct access road between Dauphin and Brandon.

The last concern that I will mention concerns the historical rights of access to a road closed by the park during the 1960s which connects the towns of Grandview and Rossburn. This was done without any consultation with the local people. Currently there are seven municipalities which have lobbied hard to have the access road re-opened.

I will close by saying that these and other decisions made over the last many years continue to puzzle the people in my constituency. The people of Dauphin—Swan River want to see more transparency in how decisions are made. People want to be involved in the process and they want the process to be honest. They do not want consultation and then see something totally different written on paper.

One of the problems is that the park superintendent has too much power. At the present time the park superintendent or the director general has total authority within the boundaries of the park.

I challenge the new Parks Canada Agency to put into practice its proposal for enhancing accountability to Canadians. After all, it is the taxpayers of Canada who own the parks.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech and the examples which he gave about the parks in his riding and how this bill would affect the individuals within his riding.

I would ask if he might give us a little more detail about his support for the bill. I would also ask what his opinion is on the interventions made earlier concerning the subcontracting clause in terms of the requirement of all individuals having to speak French even if they are not directly involved in providing a service to individuals.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of my biggest concerns with respect to accountability is: Where does one go when there is a problem with Parks Canada? Even though the process is in place, we have all the stakeholders, the round tables are established and the specific groups are organized, somewhere throughout this process it can be totally sabotaged. I say sabotaged seriously because, unfortunately, we do not control the final documentation or the final reports that are written about the discussions that take place at the round tables.

Sometimes I feel that it is almost like playing politics with the people who live in the parks and the surrounding areas. It almost appears as if they are trying to keep these people busy. Maybe the people will not complain as much if they are given access to the discussions, so they let them discuss the issues. But they know what they are going to do when the consultation process is finished.

That is my biggest concern. If the process is flawed, where does one go? Does one report to the minister or to the deputy minister? At this time, with my experience over the last seven year, I have felt very frustrated in terms of who I take a problem to.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member's constituents are aware of the fact that as mayor of Dauphin, Manitoba he worked very hard on this issue.

I am sure they are also aware that he continues to work very hard on their behalf, particularly with respect to the complications surrounding all the issues involving the Riding Mountain National Park.

One of the major problems that has been relayed to us by the member is the whole issue of how the parks are managed. They are run almost like a fiefdom. The Riding Mountain National Park is an absolutely classic example.

The direction of the road was changed at the town site on the south end that intersects the park going from south to north. The town site has basically been isolated. The commercial ventures in that area are suffering dreadfully. The parking lots in the area that were formerly overflowing on July 1 and on other holidays are all but empty even on what should be the busiest days.

The park fee structure that has been established in the area and the way in which fees are collected has fundamentally driven business outside the park. Yet, at the same time, Parks Canada is saying “We are not going to allow a renewal of leases in perpetuity”.

I am sure the member has some things to say on this subject because it must be very frustrating for the people in his constituency.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out that it is very frustrating. When someone is trying to get answers, one of the problems, as I indicated earlier, is who to take the problem to and will they want to deal with it.

Problems seem to go around in circles and circles. It is difficult to track down who is supposed to make the decisions to resolve the problems.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today on this bill. I may be coming at this from a slightly different perspective than even some of my Reform colleagues, certainly a different perspective from many members of this House, but I come at it from this point of view for a very good reason.

I live in northwest British Columbia. The riding I represent, as members know, is Skeena. As they are probably aware, there has been a significant amount of debate in British Columbia over the whole issue of the creation of parks and so on, to the extent where many people, particularly in rural British Columbia, and I would imagine that it is similar in other rural parts of Canada, are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the whole notion of parks.

I imagine that I am not unlike most Canadians. I grew up with a great sense of pride in Canada's national parks system. We took the care and the foresight to preserve parts of our country in perpetuity. There was only going to be human activity in the sense of viewing the wildlife, camping and so on. There was to be no other human activity in those areas.

When I talk about human activity, I am of course referring to mining and industrial activity. I am referring to towns being created and so on.

The experience in British Columbia has been more and more negative. Let me explain.

The provincial government in British Columbia is committed to turning 12% of the province into parkland. Mr. Speaker, I know you are not from British Columbia, but I also know you have probably had the occasion to fly over the province. On a clear day it is readily available for anybody to see that most of the province is a park by virtue of the fact that our geography makes it impossible for anything to happen on about 40% of the land base in that province. It is glaciers. It is mountain tops. It is inaccessible areas that are rugged and difficult for human beings to access. For all intents and purposes it will be left alone for all times. That is almost half the province.

In its infinite wisdom the NDP government in British Columbia is intent on turning 12% of British Columbia into parkland. Is it talking about glaciers? Is it talking about mountain tops? Is it talking about areas which are already inaccessible? No. To some degree it is talking about the areas that will never be used by human beings anyway, but for the most part it is talking about the valley bottoms, the forest land and the land base that is productive or potentially productive. I have a great deal of difficulty with that.

For example, we are so wealthy as a province that we can afford to leave $10 billion worth of copper cobalt in the ground in Tulsequah to preserve it as a world heritage site, whatever that means, for all times and to forgo the economic prosperity and wealth creation that would have resulted from that mine development.

It is estimated by the business community in British Columbia that it would have resulted in about 2,000 full time, high paying jobs. We are talking about $25 an hour jobs on the ground at the mine site and with the standard multiplier effect probably another 4,000 jobs in the province in businesses and industries to support the mining industry. Those are gone.

CBC and CTV cannot go around with television cameras and their microphones to interview people who lost their jobs because nobody lost their jobs. It was not like Cassiar, a mining town that closed down in my riding. It had been there for a long time and the pain and suffering caused by this ridiculous decision could actually be seen. No. Those people cannot be interviewed because we do not know who they would have been, but we know for sure that those jobs would have been there. They are lost for all time.

I have another example to give, Moresby Island in the Queen Charlotte Islands. Back in the mid-eighties there was a lot of controversy concerning logging on South Moresby. We had the likes of the Sierra Foundation, the Earth First people, every environmental organization possible, along with significant parts of the aboriginal population decrying logging on South Moresby.

David Suzuki made a film about logging on South Moresby in which he showed his concern that the black bears may actually be forced off Lyell Island. Then it was pointed out to him that black bears did not live on Lyell Island and he had a difficult time explaining how he could have taken film footage and pawned it off on Canadians as representative of Lyell Island when in fact it was not the case. It was a blatant lie.

That is the kind of thing the environmental movement engages in all the time. It engages in lies and mistruths, scaremongering tactics, trying to convince Canadians that the sky is falling. It has been largely successful, particularly in large metropolitan areas of the country.

In any even the environmental movement persuaded both the provincial and federal governments to suspend all logging on South Moresby and to create a new national park. Is this going to be a wonderful thing? Is this going to be great? I hope there are people in Sandspit today watching this debate on television because I know how important the issue is for them.

This small but vibrant logging community that had existed for several decades was all but obliterated by this decision. The politicians of the day said that the economic focus for Sandspit and South Moresby would change from logging into tourism. What a joke. What a laugh.

We can go to Sandspit and ask the people there how much tourism they get. Parks Canada employees have built themselves a little fiefdom there at taxpayers' expense. They have a beautiful lodge. It is the only structure that is allowed within the park because it belongs to Parks Canada. Parks Canada employees are on what I liken to a year round vacation at taxpayers' expense. The only thing they do is limit the people that go into this so-called park.

They have made it difficult for anybody to access the park. They have a waiting list. They only allow 2,000 people a year or thereabouts into the park. One has to phone ahead to make a reservation a year in advance as if going to some high class hotel. I can see the parallel. One has to be a very wealthy person to afford the terms and conditions that Parks Canada has placed on anybody going into that park.

That is why I have a difficult time listening to the government talking about bringing in legislation to create new parks. I like the idea of conserving parts of our land basin for future generations and leaving it untouched. However I do not like the idea of creating little fiefdoms for Parks Canada bureaucrats to go around telling Canadians what they can and cannot do and to have my taxpayer's dollars and the hard earned taxpayers' dollars of other Canadians spent on building grand lodges, flying around on float planes and doing all the things most of us can only dream of doing. We would like to be able to enjoy the wilderness like Parks Canada people can.

That is why I have a difficult time supporting the legislation. That is why the people in my riding, the people in my province, have a difficult time with the whole notion of parks. It is not because we do not want to see a part of our heritage preserved and protected for our children and their children, for future generations. It is just that we are becoming increasingly sceptical and doubtful that it will happen under the guise of Parks Canada.

We see it as another giant boondoggle of the federal government consuming huge amounts of federal taxpayers' money and delivering no tangible benefits to the people of Canada and, more important, to the people in the residual communities where they are so much affected by Parks Canada dictates of the day.

I am looking forward to any questions members on the other side may have.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Questions and comments. Since there are no questions and comments we will continue with debate.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am little bit slow today. I wonder whether we could revert to questions and comments and I could ask the hon. member a question or two. Would that require unanimous consent?