Debates of March 19th, 1998

Canada Shipping Act

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.

The Canada Shipping Act is one of the oldest pieces of legislation still in effect in Canada. It was enacted in 1936 and is the primary legislation governing Canadian ships in Canada's jurisdiction.

With the reorganization of both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport, a reprioritization and a clearer outline of the ministerial responsibilities of both these department is needed.

The merger of the Canadian coast guard with the department of fisheries was completed with responsibility for the coast guard functions being transferred to DFO with the exemption of harbours, ports, ship safety and pilotage and crown corporations.

Transport Canada has the prime responsibility for overseeing the reform of the Canada Shipping Act. However, some of the sections of the act will fall within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, specifically those related to pleasure craft, search and rescue, receiving, receiver of wrecks and pollution preparedness and response.

The reform that is currently under way will help simplify the regulatory framework and make the shipping act more consistent with current regulatory policies. In the end, reforms should contribute to better economic performance in the marine industry.

The government chose to carry out the reforms in a two-step approach. The first step takes place with Bill C-15. Under Bill C-15 there will be a new general part that will be added to the beginning of the act, followed by a revision of the existing Part I that will deal with ship registration, ownership and mortgages.

Part II of the reforms to the act will review the remaining parts of the shipping act, specifically dealing with the areas of safety, certification and conditions of work, accident investigation, navigation, wrecks and salvage and economic and environmental issues.

It is my understanding that Part II of the reforms is estimated to be ready in early 1999. We anxiously await these reforms and look forward to receiving and debating the issues that emerge at that time.

Bill C-15 will enable Transport Canada to assume complete responsibility for ship registration and related activities. The Minister of Transport will be permitted through the act to appoint a chief registrar who will be responsible for a register of ships. The register will deal with specific information such as the name and description of a Canadian ship, the official number and its registered tonnage, the name and address of its owner and details of all mortgages registered. This gives Transport Canada responsibility for ship registration that is currently performed by Revenue Canada's Customs and Excise.

The legislation will require that every ship that exceeds 15 tonnes gross tonnage, that was owned only by qualified persons and was not registered in a foreign country, would have to be registered. Proposed in this bill for the first time, certain foreign ships will be allowed to register in Canada.

We are in favour of many of the reforms included in the bill. It is important to point out that Bill C-15 was introduced in October 1997. However, it is essentially the same bill as C-73 that was introduced in December 1996 but unfortunately died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

Reforming the outdated shipping act is important and provides significant benefits for Canada such as more employment and business opportunities for Canadians and, above all, a rejuvenated marine infrastructure and a better service for Canadian exporters. This is particularly important as our country is an export-driven economy and we need to ensure that we have cost competitive mechanisms to get our product to market.

We only wish these reforms were of greater priority for the government and were introduced earlier. We are still pleased the bill is here now and that it will be dealt with in committee. We look forward to looking more closely at certain issues and concerns.

Under clauses 35 and 36 of the bill the minister can appoint tonnage measurers to calculate a ship's tonnage. A tonnage measurer may withhold a tonnage certificate until the person requesting it pays the tonnage measurer's fees and travel expenses. The minister may set limits on the fees and expenses charged.

Although tonnage measuring is obviously important, we hope the fees and expenses remain reasonable so we limit possible additional costs being passed on to shippers and we can have cost competitive access to our own markets. This is something to consider and watch for in the future.

The current part I of the Shipping Act will be replaced with a new part I that will modernize the registration of ships. Certificates of registry will have an expiry date. The subject of expiration is understandable in the context of a transitional period, updating the registration of ships under the old act to registration under the new act.

However, section 48 outlines many sweeping changes the governor in council may make. One area of concern under this section is the issuance and renewal of certificates of registry. Although it is important to have updated registration information about all ships, we hope future changes that may be made will not mean more bureaucracy and excessive costs associated with too frequent registration requirements.

Also under the bill the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will be provided with greater authority to regulate pleasure craft. In this regard we are somewhat concerned that the government not go too far and have too much regulation of pleasure craft. If there is a safety risk we are certainly in favour of it. However let us not have regulation for regulation's sake. We would encourage caution here. The parliamentary secretary stated that they plan on making amendments to pleasure craft at the committee level. We are very pleased to hear this.

We are pleased with certain aspects of the legislation. Clauses pertaining to definitions are important. Passenger safety will be enhanced by eliminating the specific reference to owner or charterer in the current definition of passenger, which in the past has possibly permitted some charterers to get around meeting specific safety regulations. Therefore we think this is good.

Another area we believe is good is with respect to small vessels. Presently the legislation deals mostly with large vessels and has not taken into account that small vessels are often built by manufacturers or individuals that may have fallen outside regulations that apply to larger vessels. It is important for these manufacturers to comply with construction and manufacturing standards as manufacturers of larger vessels have to do.

We support the bill. It is long overdue. It is unfortunate the legislation was not passed when it was originally introduced in the previous parliament as Bill C-73. However, it is here now and we support most of it. Certain parts of the bill warrant further analysis at committee. We should look more closely at the area of pleasure craft and how much further regulation is required. The parliamentary secretary referred to the point that they would be making amendments concerning pleasure craft at the committee level. We think this is very good and we are pleased to participate in a constructive fashion at committee.

We look forward to phase two of the reforms that will be implemented in 1999.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we go to questions and comments for the hon. member for Fundy—Royal, I made a mistake by going right to debate. The member for Churchill was entitled to 10 minutes of questions and comments.

If the member for Churchill re-enters the Chamber, at that time I will ask for the indulgence of the House to allow 10 minutes of questions and comments because it was my mistake. We will now go to questions and comments for the member to the member for Fundy—Royal.

Before putting the question, I had better put on record that because we are now putting the question we will obviously not open it up again if the hon. member for Churchill comes back. It was my mistake, I say for the hon. member for Churchill to read in Hansard . I am sorry.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed, from March 18, 1998, consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Parks Agency Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-29, known in brief as the Canadian Parks Agency Act and introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The aim of the bill is to turn Parks Canada, one of the three programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage, into an agency separate from the department, to be known as the Canadian Parks Agency.

At the moment, Parks Canada has 5,000 employees, more than a third of whom work seasonally. It administers 38 national parks and national park reserves, three marine conservation areas, 131 national historic sites, seven historic canals, 165 heritage train stations and 31 heritage rivers.

In addition, Parks Canada works with 661 national historic sites it does not own. It administers policy on some 1,000 heritage federal buildings and shares responsibility for eight world heritage sites with UNESCO.

The government gives three reasons for the creation of a new agency to replace Parks Canada: to simplify structures, improve administrative efficiency and establish more flexible staffing and financial procedures.

In order to achieve these objectives, the agency will have new or revised financial, administrative and human resource management powers. To this end, the agency will become a separate entity, a public corporation as defined in schedule II to the Financial Administration Act and will become subject to part II of schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

In terms of responsibilities, the agency will report directly to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who will be accountable for the agency's activities to Parliament. The Agency will report to Parliament by tabling the following five documents: an annual report on the agency's operations; a summary of the five-year corporate plan; management plans for the national parks, national historic sites and other protected areas; a report every five years on the human resources management regime; and a biennial report on the state of protected heritage areas.

In addition, the agency's financial statements will be examined by the auditor general, who will report to the government and who will also assess the agency's performance against its mandate, its objectives and its corporate plan.

The Canadian Parks Agency will remain subject to official languages, employment equity, human rights, access to information and privacy legislation.

As for financial provisions, the bill will give the agency several new financial powers, including; a two-year budget better suited to the investments made to develop parks and historic sites; the power to keep and reinvest all revenues, except fines; the creation of a standing dedicated account funded through parliamentary appropriation and the sale of excess property.

This account will be used to finance new parks and national historic sites. Finally, the agency will be able to make advances for unplanned land acquisitions when the context is favourable. It will have to repay these advances subject to current interest rates.

As for human resources management, the agency will be a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The CEO will have the authority to appoint employees and to define the conditions of employment of agency personnel, including collective bargaining, and the implementation of classification and staffing regimes.

These changes will give the agency the necessary flexibility to develop the human resources management regime best suited to its operating context. The parks and historic sites network spans the country, operates around the clock in several different time zones, four seasons a year, and employs many seasonal, temporary and part time workers.

All employees performing duties that will be transferred to the Canadian Parks Agency will receive a job offer. Their present job is guaranteed by Treasury Board for two years. The federal government claims that the establishment of a Canadian parks agency will allow it to fulfil more efficiently and at a lesser cost the mandate currently held by the Parks Canada program, under the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Let us not forget that, in the last four years, the government reduced Parks Canada's budget by $100 million. That budget is used, among other things, to develop the network of national parks and marine conservation areas, and to maintain and promote national historic sites and monuments.

The financial constraints imposed on Parks Canada led the government to consider a restructuring of the program's operations. The bill before us is the result of that exercise, and the proposed change is the creation of a Canadian parks agency.

The Bloc Quebecois has long been asking the federal government to streamline its operations wherever possible, and to fight waste, instead of cutting in social programs and education. This is why we support the principle of the bill, provided it will truly improve the effectiveness of the parks' management, without jeopardizing the mandate to preserve, protect and develop Canada's national parks and historic sites for future generations and for all Canadians and Quebeckers.

At a briefing, government officials gave us the assurance that this bill is not the first step toward the privatization of our parks. In fact, when he appeared before the Canadian heritage committee, on November 20, the Secretary of State for Parks Canada said “There's something I have said over and over again, and I will take an opportunity to say it here when we are talking about finance. It is not the intention of this government to either privatize or commercialize Parks Canada. We believe the maintenance of our special places in Canada is an important trust given to us by Canadians. That stewardship Canadians want to see exercised publicly, and we will continue to do that through our agency and through the oversight of Parliament”.

An issue of major concern to the Bloc Quebecois about this bill is to guarantee that, once in operation, the agency will ensure continued accessibility of parks to all citizens. This bill reflects an unequivocal desire on the part of the government to raise fees on park users.

Given that taxpayers already contribute to funding parks through their taxes, fees imposed on visitors should not be increased beyond a reasonable limit.

In addition, extra revenue from user fees, royalties or the sale of assets should be used to provide more services, better fulfil the parks' mission or expand activities. This increase in revenue should not be used as an excuse by the government to further cut appropriations allocated to the agency.

In the same vein, we want to ensure that the agency's fiscal targets and the federal government's stated wish to see the number of visitors increase in order to maximize economic benefits do not lead to an overuse of parks and historical sites.

We would like this bill to state that the agency must balance the need to preserve and maintain natural or historical sites against the increase in the number of visitors and the related expansion of tourist and commercial activities.

The Bloc Quebecois' concerns are shared by many. In November 1996, the auditor general presented a meaty report to Parliament on the protection of national heritage in Canada. The auditor general had examined the systems established by Parks Canada to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of national parks.

At the time, the auditor general pointed out that park management plans focus mainly on economic and social factors and little on ecological factors. He noted also that Parks Canada should upgrade its knowledge of the condition of natural resources in national parks in order to be able to select a sensible management approach, based on the ecosystems.

Following this report, Parks Canada took a number of corrective measures and, last fall, the secretary of state forwarded to us Park Canada's response to some criticisms made by the auditor general. The bill calls for measures relating to the creation and implementation of park management plans.

Much still remains to be done, however, before all the auditor general's recommendations can be implemented. The data on park conditions still needs to be updated, and the policies on ecological conditions need to be applied on an ongoing basis as well. The ecological objectives set out in the legislation must be translated into concrete actions if they are to become reality in spite of budget restrictions.

Parks Canada has drawn up some ambitious development plans aimed at completing the national parks system, expanding the network of national historic sites and creating a system of maritime conservation areas. At present, 24 of the 39 natural regions defined by Parks Canada are represented in its system, and its objective is to develop the remaining 15 by the year 2000.

The federal government claims these objectives will be attainable because of the enhanced efficiency resulting from reorganization, which will enable it to do more with less. As well, the government is committed to not decreasing the parliamentary votes allocated to the agency.

Nevertheless, we question the new agency's ability to consolidate and fully develop the existing sites, while maintaining its objectives of expansion in today's context of budgetary restraint.

What we do not want to see happen is for there to be a very vast but badly maintained system, with insufficient services and no ecological integrity. We wish to ensure that the development of the system of national parks and historic sites is durable and sustainable.

Our support at second reading of this bill must not be interpreted by the government as a blank cheque, however. We have let the government know that, when this bill is studied by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we want the committee to call as witnesses representatives of all groups of employees, including seasonal and part time workers, whose status might be changed as a result of the bill's planned changes. We want to ask them to tell us about their concerns with respect to this bill, to check what guarantees they have been given with respect to job security and working conditions, and to see whether these guarantees are contained in the bill.

In addition, we want the committee to hear from representatives of environmental protection groups, in order to find out where they stand on the bill and the creation of the agency. Among other things, we would like to know whether environmental groups feel that the reorganization proposed in the bill will allow the new agency to fulfil its ecological mandate.

We also want to ensure that the bill will provide a means of controlling contracting out, and ensuring impartiality and transparency in the tendering process for all contracts awarded by the Canadian Parks Agency. The new structure and wide-ranging authority of the agency's CEO in the management of human resources must not pave the way for arbitrary decisions and patronage appointments.

The government can count on our support in principle for Bill C-29 establishing the Canadian Parks Agency.

We will, however, be vigilant during clause-by-clause study of this bill in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in order to ensure that the bill makes it possible to deliver services more effectively, while respecting the existing mandate of Parks Canada.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak against Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian parks agency and to amend other acts as a consequence.

The Liberals would have Canadians believe that the purpose of this legislation is to improve Parks Canada. In fact, the Liberal background papers for Bill C-29 speak of organizational simplicity, administrative efficiency, human resources flexibility and improved financial procedures. Quoting them, they use words such as business-like manner.

Their language flows pretty in its terms, in its fancy window dressing which hides the real reason why Bill C-29 is coming into effect. The real reasons are financial and fiscal and that is why the bill is in the House today.

Canadians will be outraged when they finally realize that the details of this proposal will be understood in the near future. Words like program review are hidden. These are the reasons given for cutbacks resulting from our financial situation in the country.

But the Liberals are quick to state that Bill C-29 has nothing to do with privatization. No, the Liberals know a lot better than that. It will create a lot of trouble. Whisper privatization in anybody's ear, especially dealing with national parks, and there will be a major outrage. The repercussions will take several years to recover from.

Canadians voiced their opposition loud and clear when the Liberals originally tried to take this approach. Our parks are a sacred sanctuary. Our parks are a part of our national identity. Our parks help us define what it means to be Canadian. They are very special and distinct places in our country that reflect the ecological, cultural and geographical integrity for the generations to come.

Our parks are a legacy, a legacy which began in Banff in the mid-1880s and which continues to this day. Bill C-7, the Sagenuay-St. Lawrence marine park, was the latest legacy which was introduced and recently passed in this House. The New Democrats supported it wholeheartedly. From Banff to the St. Lawrence these parks are alive into the next millennium; a century of noble effort and honourable intentions to be laid waste for short term plans and misguided Liberal fiscal policy.

The reason this bill is being introduced is for financial deficits and cutbacks. It is to control the financial roller coaster that nobody seems to be in control of.

The finance minister stated several weeks ago that we have reached a balanced approach. But we never know where this roller coaster is going to go. We are putting our parks in jeopardy by continuing to look at a cherished institution for the sake of expediency, financial accountability, transferability and transparency.

During the deficit battle, like many other programs, departments and services, Parks Canada was attacked. It lost hundreds of millions of dollars, it lost jobs, services were reduced and user fees were increased. If we continue to operate it in business-like manner pretty soon it will be like a hockey game. How many people can afford an NHL hockey ticket today? Who will be able to afford to a part of this legacy for all Canadians, to go to a national park, to experience the beauty of Banff and Jasper, of the polar bears, the marine parks, the heritage sites? User fees will skyrocket. There will be contracting out, pay per person, private companies, loss of dedicated staff and plenty of complaints.

Canadians are angry that our national legacies are not being protected. Canadians are angry that our heritage is disappearing bit by bit, service by service, program by program. The New Democratic Party shares these concerns and is fighting for the very principles that this government and other parties are willing to squander for the sake of business-like practices. Principles are being squandered when it comes to the dollar. The legacy of national parks needs to protected. It cannot be measured by dollar value.

Bill C-29 does not seem to be the answer. If this nation has met the deficit challenge, why are we considering packaging Bill C-29, gift wrapping it for an organizational corporation like Walt Disney to purchase? Why should we consider something like that? The mentality for the last few years has been to axe policies and chop programs. That has to stop. Let us stop it at the national parks. Close the gate, as the Reform leader did at Stornoway, create a gate and stop it.

We should not continue the dismantling of federal responsibilities, especially not our parks and our historical sites. I call on my colleagues to stop an enabling legislation that will impact 38 national parks and 786 historical sites. These are important symbols of our identity. We must think long and hard before we embark on this path.

We will have a Canadian parks agency, a crown agency, reporting to the minister. Why is this necessary? Can we not fix the current problems identified by the recent round of consultations? Can we not fix it by having the employees labour, the service industries and the communities around the national parks addressing these issues with the existing structure? What is stopping us from implementing these changes and keeping Parks Canada intact?

Canadians have witnessed the spins and angles which the Liberals have used to damage our country. The Liberals did not say anything about scrapping the GST, did they? They did not mention anything about the BST in Atlantic Canada and how it would reduce cost and impact Atlantic Canadians. No, they did not mention anything like that. Again they are not mentioning that the agency is not for privatization.

Bill C-29 will save the parks and the heritage sites. That is what they are saying.

When I received my brief from department officials, I immediately felt something was wrong. It just could not be right. The bottom line was to be financially accountable and to make things affordable. However, if they make things affordable and business-like, it will be at the cost of employment services and program services. Services will be eliminated and there will be user fee hikes. That is the mentality of business-like corporations.

The Disney corporation is more than happy to raise their costs to give us a much shinier project or a much shinier concept with a futuristic approach. If they get their hands on this, like they did on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the commercial rights will be owned by a foreign corporation. That is exactly what is happening.

Canadian parks are not being privatized, but they are on the road to being commercialized. A Reform member yesterday agreed wholeheartedly that it was the right way to go, to do it in a business-like manner. He said that if he was the minister of Canadian heritage he would do it that way. I think he was dreaming. It is a right wing, capitalist approach.

Let us keep the national parks as a Canadian entity. Let us keep them for all our children. Let Canadians continue to operate them in the generations to come.

The outcry, which is a whisper right now, can be compared to what happened with our national railways. They are now operating on American soil, on American rail lines. The Canadian dream of uniting our nation has been abandoned.

We had the experience with NavCan. It was packaged by the government to be sold to a private organization. Is that where our parks are going?

As well, a fine patronage plum will be created. Under Bill C-29 a new CEO position will be created. That person will oversee the agency responsible for our parks and heritage sites. The CEO will have exclusive hiring and firing powers. The CEO will be able to dispose of and acquire crown lands and assets, following the rules of course, and we know the kind of track record the Liberals have on following rules.

The CEO will also have the power to negotiate employee contracts. The contracts which exist for Canada Parks employees will be negotiated over the next two years. We do not know what kind of contract they will have. We do not know—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but could the hon. member for Churchill River advise the Chair whether he is splitting his time?

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In that case, the hon. member is going to have to wrap up his remarks very quickly.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an absence of government members on the other side. They are few and far between. I would like to call for a quorum count.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All right. I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am advised that we have a quorum.

The hon. member for Churchill River will have one minute to complete his remarks.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

As I mentioned, the impact that it has on the 5,000 employees that the parks employ as seasonal workers, summer student employment in the summer, their first work experience at the park creating a natural, historic and cultural legacy for other generations, is truly an honourable process of how our parks have been utilized in creating employment and creating education for our biology, ecology and our culture and geography students. We also look at the fate of agencies and the government's role with regard to DND employees and privatization. A British company is now operating employee status which will have a major impact throughout Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member will have a chance to make a few more points in questions and comments.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my NDP colleague's analysis. I would like to know whether he has seen what I have.

The former section 4 of the National Parks Act reads essentially as follows “The National Parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations”.

This section does not appear in Bill C-29. It is also closely related to the former section 7.(f), which provides that the government may set fees for the use of the parks.

Now, fees will be set, it appears, by the administration of the new parks agency. Its only obligation will be to publish them in the Canada Gazette , but that remains fairly haphazard. Will the fees be the same across Canada—a mari usque ad mare—or will they be set according to the clientele or the amount of traffic? Will there be different fees, for example, at Forillon National Park and at Banff National Park?

Could the member enlighten us on that?

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

I thank the hon. member for raising that point. I have no idea about the future of this parks agency. Nobody has any idea. We are opening the door to an insecure future. There is no vision of what our national parks will be. It will be up to the chief executive officer of the agency that will be created.

It is said a percentage of 80% to 85% is government transfers and about 15% is user fees. Who is to say that in the middle of this century it will be 50% user fees and 50% government? By no means has Canada achieved the percentage of national parks that should be created. I believe it is a 12% commitment that has been made to Canadians that would be set aside as national parks. We have not achieved the percentage of lands to be set aside.

As the number of national parks increases in the future, the amount of transfer dollars available from the federal government will dwindle. Will that be decided through the corporate or management plan which will be one person planning to decide to raise the fees? It is uncharted waters and it is a scary thought.

Once you put a big bow tie on an agency such as Walt Disney, it could take over the administration of the parks and make it a truly business-like plan operating at arm's length. The government says we can raise the issue with the minister every two years for a review. It will be designed like an umbilical cord from the minister to the parks agency. Some day it could be severed and that is the scary thought. I would hate to see the national parks depart from that.

In my riding we have the Prince Albert National Park.

Another legacy that Canadians should be aware of is potash heritage sites in my region, as well as Jasper, Banff, Terra Nova and the Cape Breton Highlands. All of these parks will be impacted as well as future parks. But at what cost? Who is going to design and manage them? It will be the chief executive officer. He will be negotiating contracts with the staff. We are giving him two years to come up with it.

What if they do not come up with a contract in two years? What happens to the employees? They will be operating without a contract. Who do they fall under? Who is going to be responsible for parks like Jasper National Park or the Cheviot mine that will be right next door to a national park which is a world heritage site? Who will decide how to procure these lands? One individual could decide to sell the parks or have an ecological impact on them. That is a scary thought.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-29, since I am very close to it as a result of my past experience.

My first job was with Parks Canada in P.E.I. in 1981, and my last federal government job was at the Kouchibouguac National Park. So I have seen a lot of things first hand, particularly the developments between 1981 and 1997. I saddens me to see the direction our parks are taking today.

The first reason to create the agency is, as my colleague has said, downsizing, or job cuts. It is privatization. When the announcement came a couple of years ago that an agency would be created, I can still clearly remember our conference call with Mr. Tom Lee. It was clear that jobs were going to be lost.

We were also headed toward alternate service delivery, which means people get shown the door and then hired again on contract at a considerable loss in salary, from $15 to $5.50 an hour. When that first teleconference was held we were not fully in agreement, and those same concerns are still with us today.

I am giving you the real facts, for I lived them. If one looks at exactly what is going on in the parks today it is true that some have already got to another stage.

If people wonder what my job was, I was a cashier. I was the person who took money at the entrance. Often, families would turn up who did not have the $7 needed to get in and use the beaches, the bike paths, the walking trails. They had to turn their cars around and leave. We would have paid the fee out of our own pockets if we had been able to afford it, so that their kids could get to the beach.

That is where things have got to today. That is what the bill will bring in, a continuity of the process of making national parks accessible only to those who can afford the high fees to rent a camp site, use the bike paths and our beautiful beaches, enjoy nature. The national parks are very lovely, and they exist for a reason.

Today, they are in the process of being destroyed. Today, there is a charge for a little bundle of wood for a camp fire. Before people had to pay for wood, we had no problems with our camp sites. Now people are cutting down the trees in our national parks because they do not want to pay the $3 or $5 extra for firewood. Our parks are now being destroyed.

This agency cannot offer any guarantee that this is for the good of our parks, because that is not true. It is absolutely false.

We must also look at the reasons why national parks were established. They were estaablished to protect nature and to make sure these places would still be there for future generations. Many national parks are located in high unemployment areas. Often, they are the main employer.

Back home, I was one of the best paid employees in the region at $13 per hour, because the park was the main employer. Just think that people in these regions have to accept seasonal jobs that pay $5.50 an hour.

There are other reasons that explain what the government is doing. As my colleague pointed out, the government wants the parks to become self-sufficient and self-financing eventually.

I can see it coming. I can also see how the human aspect is absent from our parks. When I started with the parks, in 1981, the focus was on client services. Clients came first. By the summer of 1996, the priority had become “give me your $7”, or “give me your $18”. Fees are unbelievably high and they are not consistent across the country. In some parks they are very high, compared to other places.

Those who cannot afford such fees have no way of seeing, of discovering the natural resources of our national parks, and the situation will only get worse.

As a former regional vice-president of the public service alliance for the Atlantic region, I have a pretty good understanding of national parks in that region. I heard people's concerns. At one time, people were given this alternative: either we create an agency, or we make this cut and that cut. People have no choice. No one likes this system. People have to choose the lesser of two evils.

The New Democratic Party clearly will not support this bill. It is unacceptable. It goes against what we believe. All Canadians should have access to our national parks. This access should not depend on their income.

The more the government increases the cost of services, the further it is pushing in the same direction. The philosophy is “if you do not have money in this country, too bad. We changed the rules and you will no longer have access to anything”. That pattern can be seen in health care, education and the national parks.

It is very obvious that the government wants to follow the Reform Party's philosophy, which is “if you do not have money in this country, too bad”. I have a problem with that, because at one time I was among those who do not have money. I was also one of those who were expropriated from Kouchibouguac national park. I am very familiar with national parks, and I know why we pay for parks. Today, I can see that the government is changing direction, and this is not acceptable.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac on a very caring speech.

Knowing that there are 500,000 poor children in the Montreal area, I wonder whether they will ever be able to set foot in a national park, given the new parks policy.

I raised this issue earlier with the NDP member. I am concerned that under the bill—I had a quick look at it—the Canadian government is turning the responsibility over to an agency.

For example, the agency created by the minister will develop policies, but the minister will not get involved in the areas listed under clause 13, which is at the heart of the way the agency will operate. Does this mean we might see the same situation as with Montreal airports where the transport minister can no longer get involved and has no say in the way airports are managed?

Will it be the same with the new agency? Could it be that once a given area has been shown to be profitable, contrary to section 4 of the old act, which said that parks were for the use and benefit of all Canadians, the minister will bring in an agency specializing in entertainment, or a huge corporation such as Walt Disney? This organization will then become responsible for the administration of the Banff National Park, for example, in return for a small fee and will be free to charge whatever prices it wants and to go after its usual clientele, namely the rich, the upper crust, while the poor, for whom national parks were designed and created in the first place, will no longer have access to them.

We are standing on a slippery slope. This seemingly innocuous bill has huge flaws and needs rethinking. I urge the minister to retain at least his power to get involved, especially under clause 13. It is at the heart of Canada's national parks management system. Without it, we might as well sell them to for-profit corporations. In fact, this is where we are heading.

I would ask the member, who gave such a good speech, to reassure me in this regard, if at all possible.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I cannot reassure my hon. colleague because he told it exactly as it is. The chief executive officer has exclusive authority. We have to ask ourselves why the power to make all decisions regarding hiring, operations, everything, has to be concentrated in the hands of one individual. We clearly have to figure out exactly what the Liberal government is up to here. It is trying to pull a fast one, as we say.

However, some members of this House can see exactly what is going on. It is not fair, and that is a fact. This person obviously has too much power, and that is the direction we are headed in, as I indicated earlier. We are moving in the wrong direction, that is, toward the commercialization of our national parks. That is quite obvious. No one can argue that we are not headed in that direction, which will mean more pollution, more of everything.

Again, we must realize that unemployment is a big problem in this country. Affected employees will be guaranteed a job for two years only. They do not know where they will be working two years from now. Many employees across the country have no idea where they will be in two years.

I completely agree with my colleague that the government is moving in a very dangerous direction, which will certainly be harmful to our parks and to our economy.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian Parks Agency, which will be responsible for the administration of all legislation relating to national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and heritage areas. This bill will also make consequential amendments to other acts.

I am pleased to take part in this debate because I live in an area, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, that has always been known as having great potential for tourism. It took several decades before we could even hope that, some day, we would be on the list of Canadian national parks. With regard to the management of federal and even provincial parks, we realize that we must try to add new elements that will make park management more dynamic, if I can use that term, and that will involve local communities to a greater extent.

I will have the opportunity later on to make further comments on the contents of Bill C-29. In my own region, there is a provincial park, the Saguenay park, and there is also the marine national park. A co-operative effort is being made to try to meet common objectives for the development of our region and for the tourist industry of Quebec and of Canada as a whole. The efforts to establish the new national marine park directly affiliated with Parks Canada have been successful.

But we realize that, in both provincial and national parks, we must try to provide funding so that our managers can initiate productive projects for the future and give guarantees in order to eventually promote the direct involvement of municipalities and the private sector, and so that we can bring more people into our parks.

Through the involvement of regional sectors, both private and public, perhaps we could make some interesting changes to the parameters and criteria underlying the management of national and provincial parks.

I know very well that some efforts must be made to increase the number of visitors in our national and provincial parks. Some major corrective action must be taken to provide these parks with new facilities that would help attract more people.

For example, in my region, 200,000 visitors go to the mouth of the Saguenay River, to Tadoussac, in Charlevoix, but not even a quarter of them go to the Saguenay provincial park and marine park. We have to rethink a number of things.

I believe that the initiative to establish this agency will allow us to increase the participation of the people in the area. At the present time, it is very difficult to set up new infrastructures in these parks. I am referring, among other things, to the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park in our case. As has been done at Montmorency Falls, at Val-Jalbert and in national parks in western Canada, we could provide some means of access so that people could get to the extraordinary lookout site of Cap Trinité. It takes four and a half hours to walk to the statue.

Therefore, the people in the area, with the support of their federal member of Parliament, are thinking about setting up perhaps a cable-car or some other way to provide access to this site that is quite extraordinary.

We have to redesign the existing infrastructure, and the establishment of the parks agency will certainly be an opportunity for increased financial autonomy, making this agency less vulnerable to government interventions that are not always timely. I am convinced stakeholders will feel this agency is more open to their needs and suggestions than Parks Canada has been in the last few years.

I think the best way to successfully manage the assets that remind us of our past is to bring in people into the regions in great need of economic development through tourist, cultural and heritage attractions. People will certainly be more than happy to suggest to the brand new agency ways to make these extraordinary sites that are an important part of Canada's and Quebec's heritage more profitable and attractive.

I am sure people in the outlying regions will become more actively involved in the way parks are managed. If such an agency is established, as we hope it will be, I am sure it will be quite open to the recommendations of people who have an economic, cultural and social interest in bringing in more people to enhance our whole heritage infrastructure and boost park development.

There is still a great deal of work to be done, but the auditor general has told us he has serious doubts about the future of Canadian park development because of the budget cuts.

During the last few decades, funding was haphazard. I am sure that, with the new agency being established under Bill C-29, we will be able to consider more seriously the future of our heritage and tourist industry.

I am also convinced that my beautiful riding of Chicoutimi and my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean will make a significant contribution to the development of our national parks. In my area, in particular, with the agency speeding up the structural development of national parks, we will be able to step up cooperation with existing provincial parks, as was done during the last few years.

Rest assured that our party will support this bill, because it is a step in the right direction. It is not perfect, but I am sure that the existence of this agency will make park managers more accountable. I remind the hon. members that Parks Canada was not even officially recognized. Under this bill, it will gain official recognition and receive guaranteed, statutory budgets. It will be assured of receiving the budget resources needed to promote development and also, I hope, to encourage cooperation among the stakeholders, who have different and very specific interests in regional development.

Our party will cooperate and support this bill which is a step in the right direction.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech very closely and I have two questions for him.

There a number of very poor Canadian families in the country. I think it was indicated this morning that about 1.4 million children are living in poverty. We heard on the news today that there are 200,000 young people out of work, largely school dropouts who do not appear on any statistical record.

Would my hon. friend agree that with the imposition of user fees certain Canadians, particularly children from low income families, will have a difficult time accessing the use of some of our national parks?

While it is called commercialization of the national parks, would he not agree that this is another euphemism for the privatization of Parks Canada?