Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the final reading of Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park.
When the Reform Party critic from Kootenay—Columbia spoke on November 4 on this bill, he raised certain issues of concern. I quote from the Reform member for Kootenay—Columbia:
The legislative process that we entered into in this House is very important. All steps in the process are very important. In this case the committee work will be a very valuable part of putting this important legislation in place.
It is important for people on both sides of this issue to have an opportunity to express themselves so that we as members have a clear understanding as to where their concerns are.
What we suggested is that the committee must take a look at the flexibility of the legislation and the impact on potential tenants.
What happened at the committee was there was a briefing from Parks Canada officials. The member for Kootenay—Columbia asked that we address concerns and call witnesses. The member requested recorded votes. The committee members unanimously defeated the call for witnesses. The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage effectively gave it the old rubber stamp.
The committee did not do its job. It did not do due diligence. The rubber stamp was unanimous by all other parties.
As far as the member for Kootenay—Columbia stated on November 4, 1997, once again the Liberal government is using the House as a rubber stamp. Today we now have the committee acting like a rubber stamp.
Some of the concerns raised by the Reform critic are, for example, the implication for commercial and sports fisheries on the St. Lawrence. What are the implications for other users of the river? It is absolutely essential that the people who are using the area for its marine life be consulted. What are the implications because of the overlay of the park regulations? If we consult generally speaking we can avoid any confrontations and avoid taking unnecessary steps.
Most important is what precedent has this bill established for future parks. Parks cannot be established in isolation or in a vacuum. Consultation is required in order to ensure that they work well.
At second reading the member for Kootenay—Columbia said that it is imperative the committee ask all the questions and ensure those questions are debated at committee and answered before coming to a final conclusion. This was not realized.
I reject the rubber stamp process and therefore have some concerns about the balance of this legislation. It would appear that all the other parties at the committee are unwilling to do their jobs. All the same, this would not stop Reform from voting in favour of the establishment of the park.
Parks are an important issue to the Reform Party. Reluctantly and in spite of the flawed process I am recommending to my colleagues that we vote in favour of the park.
In conclusion, on a personal note as a Canadian I am proud to see that Canada will have the first marine national park in the world.