Mr. Speaker, I am rising to discuss Motion No. 5, which deals with national parks. According to the amendment the effect would be to drop all references in the legislation to national parks, historic canals and national marine areas.
I suppose the question arises: Why should we include national parks under Canadian heritage? For those of us who have been interested in the park system it is interesting to note that over the years national parks have been located in different ministries.
The first place they were to be found after their creation in the 1880s was in what might be described as the predecessor to the Ministry of Natural Resources. This indicates that parks in those days were seen to have not only a natural component but also an economic component. They were seen as part of Canada's natural resources.
A subsequent reorganization of government meant that parks found themselves suddenly with Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This new vision of parks suggested that they were to be seen somehow as up there, out there, out of sight, out of mind to some degree. That was because they were in remote places often in the north, often in places where the aboriginal populations could be found. Of course that ignored the reality that there were parks close to centres of habitation, such as the Rocky Mountain parks.
After that the parks structures found themselves in the Minister of the Environment which seemed to make sense. The theme there was one of protection rather than human use. It put the stress on not interfering with the parks which took away the notion of an economic connection with parks.
Now finally with Canadian heritage the circle is to some extent complete. This latest reorganization of government recognizes that parks have different characteristics all of which have to be recognized. They are natural preserves and need protection, but they are also cultural sites. They are also economic sites for activity, for tourism for example.
By putting them into a new ministry this bill tries to recognize the complex way in which we now look at parks. In this bill we recognize that history, culture and nature are intertwined in some fundamental way. This is simply to pick up on what is happening internationally under conventions such as that of UNESCO concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. In UNESCO's eyes cultural and natural heritage are inevitably linked and so they are in ours.
Parks are also a crucial element of our national identity. They go with the vision that Canadians have of themselves wherever they live, of being in some close harmony with nature, some respect of nature and some awe of nature. It was Margaret Atwood who once described the common theme of Canadian literature, si c'était en anglais ou en français, as survival in the face of nature, survival in the face of difficult forces.
Those who are concerned that by having parks taken away from the Department of the Environment should rest assured that the environmental concerns will not be diminished by having them in Canadian heritage. They will continue to be respected. It will continue to be the case in our international agreements, such as under UNESCO that parks will be fully protected.
The reason that parks are being put in Canadian heritage is to respect their role as part of our system of values, part of our history, part of our culture, part of what it is to be a Canadian.
As I mentioned earlier, there is an appropriate return to where we first saw parks because there are economic reasons as well to link together national parks and national historic sites. That is because tourism of all sorts is of continuing and indeed growing importance for this government. As members of this House will recall, we have a major $7 billion tourist deficit and parks have their role to play in correcting that, as do national historic sites.
These are terrific assets, our parks and historic sites. It makes sense for them to be kept together. We think that indeed for those who worry about the environment having parks located in the Department of Canadian Heritage simply means there is one more environmental voice at the cabinet table.
It is also the case that it is a commitment of this government to complete the national parks system, that system which was so much expanded in the 1970s by our present Prime Minister. To this we are adding a new kind of park under water parks, the national marine conservation areas which this amendment would have us locate in some other place. These are the parks of the future; these are the parks which respect our complex marine life. They too belong in the same package with the national parks and national historic sites.
Finally, it seems to us that having subjected the national parks system to so many reorganizations and having had it put in so many different places over time that Parks Canada has done well in the new Department of Canadian Heritage. It has found a new place to call home. It would be both counterproductive and extraordinarily disruptive to move it yet again after a mere year and a half.
For those reasons we are opposed to this amendment. We think that national parks and indeed canals and national marine conservation areas belong properly with the Department of Canadian Heritage.