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.