Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting speech. The pairing off of the parks from Heritage Canada and the insertion of the junior ministry of parks I believe has been a very positive step in the management of parks in Canada.
I have had a good working relationship with this minister and I would hope that, all partisan politics aside, it might continue.
The purpose of the Canadian parks agency act is to administer and protect our national parks, national historic sites and other heritage areas. This is a very important part of Canada. Indeed, as Reformers representing the grassroots, ordinary Canadians, more and more people across Canada are coming to see and understand and value the importance of parks and the preservation of parks.
We may have different visions and from time to time we find that some of the visions of this minister, indeed of this government, are rather restrictive and a touch myopic, but nonetheless we have the ability to dialogue. I think we have established a working relationship here that the Liberals clearly understand, that the Reform Party is very keenly interested in maintaining our natural ecosystems, in maintaining the ability of Canadians to be able to know, see and understand the importance of parks in their lives.
At present the responsibility for parks, as I have mentioned, falls under the Department of Canadian Heritage. Although this agency will still report back to this minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, maybe we have to give even more creative thought as to how we can even further depoliticize the whole issue of parks.
The new agency will remain accountable through the minister to Parliament. One of the concerns we had when we first saw the title of this act was that it was a step further removed in terms of being answerable to the people who are elected on behalf of the citizens of Canada to administer parks, but indeed it is not.
One of the major reasons we recognize that parks are unique in terms of their administration is that there are many things that we can do to create and there are many things that we can dismantle or take apart and then rebuild from a legislative perspective. When it comes to parks what we have to all clearly understand is that we are talking about living ecosystems. We are talking about our very environment. We are talking about being able to do absolute total damage that is irreparable.
We all recognize and acknowledge that. Again I want to make the commitment on behalf of the Reform Party that any actions taken with respect to parks, any management of parks, are taken from our perspective with that in mind.
We also like the idea that the agency will be more efficient since it will be able to raise and keep its own revenues, to bargain directly with its employees, to permit third party operators to administer certain facilities and to allow the chief executive officer of the parks agency to set terms and conditions of employment.
One of the difficulties there has been, because of the very unique nature of parks in Canada, is to try to fit into a template that simply does not fit. Parks are of an unique shape. Parks do not fit into the box that most of the government functions can easily fit into.
The agency will have access to a new $10 million parks historic sites account. Any funds drawn from this account will be repayable to the crown with interest. Even this in itself is somewhat innovative and will permit a flexibility within the parks agency that is not clearly available with the existing legislation.
In relation to Reform Party policy, No. 5 in our statement of principles is that Canada's identify and vision for the future should be rooted in and inspired by a fresh appreciation of our land and the supreme importance to our well-being of exploring, developing, renewing and conserving our natural resources and physical environment. We support the concept of environmentally sensitive zoning. Therefore this park agency fits very well into the established policy of the Reform policy as it presently exists.
We are committed as a party to having our national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner. We support the agency's objective of cost recovery while at the same time ensuring that fees at Canada's national parks and heritage sites do not become prohibitively expensive.
The minister will know that I have had some criticism in the past. I continue with the criticism over the way in which the entrance fees are administered in our parks. It is a hodgepodge. It is an unenforceable hodgepodge. It is one which is very important.
If we were to take a very rough figure of $350 million as being the parks gross budget, at this point approximately $50 million of that is accounted for in terms of fees, rents and leases in external money coming into the park. The problem is that 40% of that, $20 million, comes from park entry fees that cannot be administered effectively. In fact, it is in a position of causing people to really cheat and creates an environment where there is a sufficient advantage for people to cheat on these fees. We are losing that revenue side. It is this kind of thing that is currently going on within the parks system that will not be resolved with the establishment of the parks agency.
I believe that the structure of the parks agency will lead to an environment where questions like this can be dealt with in a more business-like manner. It is the same thing as the enterprise units that were established on an experimental basis. These were the hot pools in the four mountain parks. It was a first step in the direction of the parks agency that the revenue coming from the hot pools in Banff, Radium and Jasper would be able to go into its own account and be accounted for. Unlike the current system within the rest of the federal government where funds that come in go into consolidated revenue, these funds would be earmarked. This enterprise unit would be able to administer the pools in a business-like way. There has been some success with that as a first step.
The Reform Party has taken a look at a number of these things and we see some real glimmers of hope that there is going to be a much more rational approach in the area of financing the parks.
Canadians benefit through a continued service at the parks and sites. The flexibilities and authorities provided in the legislation are designed to support the agency in delivering services within substantially reduced budgets.
To comment parenthetically for a second, it may be known that I have the good fortune of having four parks in my constituency, Mount Revelstoke, Glacier, Yoho and Kootenay National Park. Of course, Kootenay is adjacent to Banff and Jasper parks and Waterton in the southwest corner of the province of Alberta. I am actually surrounded by a tremendous number of parks.
I am indeed fortunate to live where I do. I also live near the people who work at these parks and they have spoken to me. They have my ear. They have some concerns with respect to how the parks agency is going to relate to them as the workers in the parks. I look forward in committee to having input from people representing all the layers involved in the delivery of services in the parks.
It is the Reform Party position that first there is the necessity through services like the ranger service to ensure that the physical management, administration and enforcement within the parks are maintained at a very high level. That is very essential to ensure the integrity of the parks.
Second, with respect to the delivery of the other services, particularly for parks visitors, it is the party's position that it is done in a cost effective way. It must be done in such a way that Canadians will always be able to access the appropriate places in the parks where they should be going so they can enjoy their out of door experiences.
With this in mind while speaking parenthetically, one of the major disappointments to me as a member of Parliament occurred when Parks Canada in its present life decided it would start contracting out. It struck me that what we should have been doing at that point was rather than going to contracting out without having established the structure of the parks agency, that we had an effort to do something without having any idea of what the structure was going to look like. That struck me as being a very shallow way for us to be going ahead and doing something which perhaps was politically popular at the time.
Of the 3,500 parks employees there are many people, whether we are talking about top management or about hourly workers, who legitimately have been very concerned about their livelihoods. They are concerned about whether they are going to have a job, if they are going to be able to buy running shoes for their kids next month.
This has been very unfair. I was very happy to see Parks Canada back off a very flawed process. With that in mind I close my parenthetic remarks.
The people who are going to be affected by the parks agency I am sure with the co-operation of the minister will have access to the committee to speak to the various provisions of the legislation. Whether they are in unions or are non-unionized hourly workers or whether they are in management, they must be able to have access.
We should also bear in mind some of the unfortunate things that have happened. For example at the Department of National Defence people have come forward to make submissions and have been chastized for it. I am sure that would never ever happen with Parks Canada.
Through the parks agency Canadians will benefit by the creation of new parks and sites. We have to be very careful. We do not have a limitless chequebook. We have to recognize that the money that will be expended on parks in the future is coming from the taxpayers' chequebooks. We have to be very prudent in the way we do that. On the other side of the coin, we also have to recognize there are some identifiable areas in Canada that we have to look at and which we have to preserve for the benefit of our children and our grandchildren.
Under the parks agency there is the potential to have enhanced accountability to Canadians. The legislation, while encompassing the existing activities associated with national parks, national historic sites and related protected heritage sites, reinforces roles which engender pride and give expression to our values and identity as Canadians.
The minister will retain full power of direction over agency activities. The legislation provides for new or improved accountability mechanisms to Parliament. These are the parts that we really like: a summary of the corporate plan and annual report; a biennial state of Canadian protected heritage areas report; the tabling of management plans for national parks and national historic sites in Parliament; and a unique mechanism which requires that the agency hold a biennial forum which will permit Canadians from all walks of life to share their views on the agency's program and to participate more fully in the management direction for these treasured national places.
These parks do not belong to the minister. They do not belong to members of Parliament. These parks belong to the people of Canada, and who better to have a say in the way in which they are managed and the way in which they are preserved and enhanced for the future of Canadians. In that respect we find that part of the parks agency legislation to be the most beneficial.
Working toward the completion of the national parks system and to enhance the systems of national historic sites and marine conservation areas is probably the biggest single challenge we have. This is most likely the area where we would end up with whatever disagreement we would have with the Liberals. I would not see it as being a political difference of opinion although the Liberals have a well-deserved reputation of intervening in many situations where there does not need to be government intervention.
We see being able to co-operate with the Liberal government, with any government. For example, three and a half years from now when the Reform forms the government, we would look forward to the participation of the Liberals with us along with whoever else gets the remnants of the seats in Canada. We would hope they would co-operate with us in the continued management of the parks.
There has been a challenge of maintaining the services and achieving long term goals. With that in mind again we are enthusiastic supporters of the way in which the accountability has been structured within this bill. I have stated that the agency will report directly to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who will in turn be accountable for its activities before Parliament. Current mechanisms to ensure responsible public dialogue and accountability will be enhanced.
There will be a summary of the corporate plan of the agency, a five year plan, and management plans for the national parks and national historic sites, and an annual report on the agency's operations. There will be a summary of the prepared report at least every five years on how the human resource regime supports the values and principles established by the government management of human resources. There will also be a biennial report on the state of Canadian protected areas.
We find the way in which the funds are going to be administered also makes a lot more sense, that of accountability, of the financing being on a two year operational rolling budget providing an annual carryover of funds.
We have had an exceptionally light snow year in the mountain parks, not that these are the only parks in Canada. Heaven only knows they go from Newfoundland to the Arctic and back—