Debates of March 19th, 1998

Canadian Parks Agency Act

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his important comments.

He alluded to poverty. I do not come from a very wealthy region. Since it is always better to talk about what we know best, I can tell you that, in the communities where these parks are located, 40% to 50% of the workforce has trouble finding work.

Fees will be charged, but there is a downside. I get messages from communities affected by the establishment of national parks, and even provincial parks, to the effect that they would like to be in charge of the development of these infrastructures. For example, there is a provincial park at home that was established 25 years ago, but very few jobs were created.

Local people are telling us they want to improve their financial status, as mentioned by the hon. member, and take on more responsibilities. It would really be in everyone's interest to let these municipalities and villages take on some of the responsibilities, so that they could play a role in the creation of new infrastructures that will bring in more people.

For example, back home, 200,000 people travel to the mouth of the Saguenay River, in the Tadoussac—Baie-Sainte-Catherine area. Only 30% to 35% of them make it to the heart of the Saguenay park. This means the region loses out on a lot of revenue, because of a lack of infrastructures.

For instance, It is indicated that these are conservation areas. However, wildlife and plant life alone will not attract tourists. Some major infrastructures are necessary to make it easier for the tourists. Let us not forget that, economically speaking, seniors are currently the most appealing group of tourists.

In order for these elderly to have safe access to certain sites, certain infrastructures must be built.

I really appreciate the hon. member's question. Indeed, if local people are more involved, I think it will greatly promote job creation and economic development. It will also indirectly allow these people to have access to the new sites that they have helped develop in an intelligent way that takes their views into account.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on the occasion of the second reading of Bill C-29, an act to establish the Canadian parks agency and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.

This bill will make it possible to modernize the agency responsible for managing Canada's national parks, national historic sites and other protected heritage areas.

The mandate of this organization, presently known as the Parks Canada program of the Department of Canadian Heritage, is to play the leading role in federal government activities related to recognizing places representative of Canada's natural heritage and places of national historical importance, protecting these places and presenting them to the public.

Along with national parks and national historic sites these special places include historic canals, a system of heritage railway stations, heritage rivers, federal heritage buildings and the vibrant federal archaeological program as well as Canada's UNESCO world heritage sites including most recently a favourite of mine, the old town of Lunenburg in Nova Scotia.

The establishment of the Canadian parks agency will bring two main benefits to Canadians. First, and I say this to reassure and to respond to the concerns of the member for Churchill River. It is to assist in the creation of new national parks, the designation of additional national historic sites and the management of other related protected heritage areas including the creation of national marine conservation areas. In other words this is not an act of retrenchment. It is an act which permits the ultimate expansion of these programs.

The second is the continued delivery of quality service to Canadians at existing parks and sites.

Canadians attach great importance to their system of protected natural and cultural heritage areas. Our national parks, our national historic sites and other protected heritage areas are characteristic of the geography, history, culture, economy and even the identity of our country.

Canadians are joining forces to protect these exceptional sites and to further expand our system of national parks, national historic sites and other protected heritage areas. In so doing, we are not just protecting our environment and our historical and cultural artifacts; we are preserving what makes us Canadians, what sets us apart from the rest of the world.

We have every reason to be proud of these sites, which represent Canada and which are evidence of the sound and sustainable management of the cultural and environmental resources of our heritage.

I also reassure the member for Churchill that the new Canadian parks agency will not change the mandate of the Parks Canada program.

The act creating the agency will support and wherever possible strengthen that mandate, enhancing its stewardship role in relation to Canada's natural and cultural heritage.

The Canadian parks agency will remain fully accountable to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and to parliament. The agency will report to parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage who will retain power of direction over agency activities.

Finally, the National Parks Act and other legislation setting out the mandate of the program will continue to be enforced. In short, we will not be turning our national parks into Disney theme parks despite the concerns of the member opposite. Indeed, if anybody attempted to try to sell off Canada's national parks or to reduce their territory, they would have to come back to parliament to do so.

What will change is that a new framework will be put in place to administer these existing pieces of legislation.

The Canadian Parks Agency will differ from the existing organization in two significant ways.

First, control of the agency will be through direct hierarchic links between it and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Second, administrative provisions will be made to measure so as to respond to the agency's specific objectives and unique operational requirements.

In practical terms, this means that the Canadian Parks Agency will use the tools and instruments that best suit its highly decentralized and diversified operations.

The member for Jonquière raised a number of justified concerns on the proposed agency's financial arrangements. I want to reassure her that its financial management practices will still be governed by the Financial Administration Act. It will continue to prepare its main estimates and to receive parliamentary appropriations. The agency will still be audited by the office of the auditor general.

One of the main reasons for creating the Canadian Parks Agency was to ensure Canadians continued to enjoy a high level of service. Another objective was, to respond to the concerns of the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, to create a stable administration that would provide parks' employees with some assurance their jobs would remain. In fact, there is even the possibility of extending jobs, contrary to what she feared.

To this end new flexibilities are being created. Canadians will benefit from them in very concrete ways such as the way in which the new agency will now be able to work toward the completion of the national parks system and the expansion of the system of national historic sites and other protected heritage areas as I described earlier.

For example, the Canadian parks agency will receive the authority to keep and spend most of its revenue. This will result in additional dollars for investment in new national parks, new national historic sites and other protected heritage areas. A new non-lapsing account will be used to fund the creation of new parks and sites, as well as to complete those parks and sites which have not yet been fully developed. This account would be able to carry moneys forward into the future and will help the agency achieve existing government commitments.

A two year rolling budget will make it easier for the agency to plan and carry out its expenditures and will result in a greater stability of service for Canadians and a greater stability of regime for employees.

The agency will also receive a higher level of delegated financial and administrative authorities from Treasury Board. This will reduce the time needed to make decisions and to get approvals.

The agency will continue to come under Government of Canada contracts regulations, but will have increased powers to manage the purchase and sale of properties, award architectural and engineering services contracts and award construction contracts.

The agency will be able to negotiate the optional delivery of certain common services with the departments responsible. Examples of these are surveying, property assessments, disposal of surplus assets, printing and publishing. This will put managers in a better position to seek out the most economical and convenient services.

In discussing the organization's mandate, it is important to note that, even if it does not have a direct mandate for tourism, it does play an important role, as the hon. member for Chicoutimi has pointed out, in visitors' image of Canada, helps maintain a prosperous and solid economy, and encourages sustainable development to the benefit of local communities.

Canada's national parks, national historical monuments and other protected heritage sites generate more than $2 billion yearly in direct and indirect economic benefits, which are of crucial importance to local economies in rural, isolated or economically underdeveloped regions. Once again, I am picking up on what the hon. member for Chicoutimi has said.

It is therefore very important to note that the Canadian Parks Agency will continue to operate Parks Canada's corporate units and urban townsites revolving funds, which are used to administer the hot springs in Banff, Jasper and Kootenay national parks, the golf course in Cape Breton Highlands National Park and the six townsites within a national park.

The future integrity of Canada's natural and cultural heritage sites will continue to represent a priority for the Canadian Parks Agency, as it does for the present government. The challenges facing Canada's heritage areas will continue to increase, as will the demands upon them. It is essential not only to design policies that can protect these irreplaceable treasures forever, but also to ensure that the organization with key responsibility for our heritage is equipped with the necessary tools and structures to fulfil the mandate with which the people of Canada have entrusted it.>

The legislation before us will enable the new Canadian parks agency to meet the challenges now facing our heritage areas in a most efficient way. It will continue to provide for the use and enjoyment of Canadians a system of national parks, national historic sites and related protected heritage areas and to manage these places in ways that leave them unimpaired for future generations.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Five members have indicated a desire to speak on questions and comments. We will start with the member for Lethbridge, then member for Frontenac—Mégantic, and third, the member for Cariboo—Chilcotin. If we have a chance, we will go to the member for Churchill River. With 10 minutes, it means we have approximately 60 seconds for the question and 60 seconds for the response.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make it quick. I have a national park in my riding, Waterton Lakes National Park, a hidden jewel of the west. We are very proud of it.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that there will be new parks and that there will be expanded parks. Could he indicate to us whether in the discussions and in the proceedings they talked about jurisdictional overlap and the disputes that have arisen with other levels of government when it comes to developing a park? Is there a new mechanism in place to handle that? Has it been a consideration?

If the intent is to make the parks more efficient and to make the best use of the dollars available, can the member assure us that the user fees that are charged at the parks now are not going to get out of hand? Is there some formula? Is there something in place to assure that the people who are enjoying the parks now will be able to afford to enjoy them in the future?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first question was about the expansion of the parks system. The member asked if we are using new mechanisms to involve all the appropriate levels of government.

We are developing such mechanisms when we create things like the new national marine conservation areas. We are continually involving local populations and provincial governments in order to arrive at common objectives. As the member indicated, these are complex matters with many layers. Existing mechanisms are being adapted for new challenges such as these marine conservation areas.

Two things can be said on the second point of user fees. It is a mandate of the parks not to charge more than the service costs. In other words they are not designed to be profit centres. More important, under section 25(1) of the act, the minister is responsible for the setting of park fees and must do so only after consulting with the group of relevant people in the area to see what would be the consequences of raising those fees. If it were in any way a barrier, that would affect the final decision on the fees.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Bill C-29, the hon. member for Don Valley-West said the new parks agency would have a higher level of administrative authority and more power to manage the environment in a national park.

Could we have a commitment from him that we will never again see what we are witnessing in Alberta, where there is a beautiful national park threatened by the opening of a mine nearby? It would appear that nothing can be done to prevent this from happening even though this mine is sure to cause serious damage to this park established many decades ago.

Within the higher level of authority given to the new parks agency, would it be possible to plan for this kind of situation and include provisions allowing the board of directors of a park and the new agency to take control of the park and, if need be, to expropriate and enlarge the park so that hundreds of millions of dollars in investments would not be lost because of so-called progress?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is straightforward. > Since the present National Parks Act remains in effect, everything regarding economic decisions such as the ones mentioned by the member will remain in effect. Therefore, this new scheme will not allow the agency to go beyond the usual standards regarding the environment or consultations at the local level.

This bill deals strictly with organizational matters, and with regard to the kind of decisions mentioned by the member opposite, current procedures will remain. So the answer is no.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask these questions of the parliamentary secretary.

The parks system is vast. There are 38 parks, 131 national historic sites, 661 sites operated by third parties, seven historic canals, three marine conservation areas, 165 heritage railway stations and 31 heritage rivers. The proposal seems to make some move toward organizational simplicity and administrative efficiency. There seems to be a delayering and more financial accountability.

The parliamentary secretary said that they are in the process of planning. I hear this so often from the government. What is the government doing beyond planning to bring these good ideas into practice?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about planning in two ways. In terms of creating a stable regime for the parks, like so many other government agencies Parks Canada has been subject to tremendous pressures through downsizing. This has been a difficult period for Parks Canada. That period is over. The thought now is to create a regime which will give the parks a better chance for stability by allowing them for example to keep moneys at the end of the year which they have made through their various ancillary activities.

The actual efficiency aspects will be coming in to place as soon as the act is passed. In terms of planning in the grander sense as to how we complete our national parks system, I think that as I suggested in my speech this law indirectly will allow that to happen by providing more money and a more stable regime. In that way we can either complete existing parks or get on with the new ones a bit faster.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canadian parks agency, the term Canadian parks is a change. It is now known as Parks Canada. How much money is going to be spent to advertise Canadian parks? Will the the letterhead, logos and signs be changed? Some people went into a flap about the beaver as our national parks logo. Is that going to be changed?

The chief executive officer has exclusive rights. In terms of user fees the minister only has to consult someone she thinks is interested in user fees. It could be the chief executive officer. He would be interested. That is all that is required in the act, whoever is interested, deemed by the minister.

I am interested. I live in Beauval, Saskatchewan. My children are also interested about what happens in Banff and Waterton. These are wonderful Canadian parks for Canadians. We are interested but we will not be consulted.

I think we should take a second look at this agency, the powers we are giving to it and the future of the legacy of our national parks.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the second point of consultation, the regime described in the bill is simply a carryover of the existing practice. The minister is accountable in this House for those decisions. The minister is a politician like the rest of us. It is normal to expect the minister in order to avoid a political firestorm to consult widely to protect the government in the fashion which has been the practice up to the current moment. It is a practice which is simply being reincarnated in the proposed legislation.

As for the point about the renaming aspect of the bill, I would venture a personal opinion here. When we have a brand name like Parks Canada we would be a little careful about frittering away the benefits of that brand name. It may be that the agency aspect may simply be the title of record. Those are decisions we will have to make in due course.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my support for Bill C-29, the Canadian parks agency act. While it is rare that we see eye to eye with the government on issues, I feel that partisanship must be cast aside when good ideas emerge. This rarely happens on the other side though.

Canada is a country filled with natural wonders. Our natural environment is as much a symbol of our country as are the maple leaf and the beaver. From Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba to Glacier National Park in British Columbia, our parks are national treasures.

I represent the riding of Calgary East, a stone's throw away from the beauty and splendour of Banff, Jasper and Yoho national parks. I can say that Calgarians and indeed all Canadians are extremely proud of their national parks.

People come from around the world to take in the beauty of our country. In fact, our national parks and sites attract over 24 million visitors yearly and contribute over $2 billion annually to the economy. While dollars do matter, we should not let this alone determine our commitment to preserving our parklands.

It is my hope that this bill will allow our national parks to flourish while at the same time dramatically reducing the amount of government resources needed to administer them.

Bill C-29 calls for the creation of a new agency, the Canadian parks agency. Nine times out of ten I cringe when I hear of the birth of yet another bureaucratic monolith. This usually means that the Canadian taxpayer is on the hook to pump in maximum dollars for minimum results.

However, in this case I see some merit in the establishment of the Canadian parks agency. Let me explain why.

Parks Canada is currently responsible for our country's 38 national parks and, among other things, 131 national historic sites. It manages over 225,000 square kilometres of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and employs roughly 5,000 people.

At present responsibility for Parks Canada falls under the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Secretary of State for Parks who reports to the heritage minister.

The new agency will remain accountable, through the minister, to Parliament. Perhaps the most significant change will be that the new proposed agency will be able to raise and keep its own revenue. This will no doubt contribute to more efficiency and will hopefully lead to a decrease in the fees Canadians pay to gain access to our national parks.

I have heard on numerous occasions from my constituents that the costs of visiting places like Banff and Jasper are too high. The user fees keep going up and up, discouraging Canadians from visiting the national parks to see their own heritage. We have an obligation to the people of Canada to make it as affordable as possible for families to take advantage of this beautiful country.

It is nice to see that once in a very long while the government gets it right. In this instance the Liberals have acknowledged that self-sufficiency in government is the right route to take.

The Canadian parks agency will be able to raise and keep its own revenue. It will have access to $10 billion for parks and historic sites. Normally this is where the taxpayer alarm would sound. Another $10 billion of people's hard earned money will be spent? However, in this instance any funds drawn from the $10 billion account will be repayable to the crown with interest from revenue generated.

As well, third party operators will be permitted to administer certain facilities. Outsourcing to private business will improve service, increase revenue and deliver improved efficiency. This new financial independence will allow the revenue generated to flow back into the parks and sites. This in turn will allow for the establishment and expansion of new initiatives. What this means is that new parks will be created and those already in existence will be better maintained. This is how the government should work when it comes to areas such as this.

The agency will be able to bargain directly with its employees. The CEO will have the authority to appoint employees and establish terms and conditions of employment for agency staff. Hopefully this will afford the agency the flexibility to develop a human resource regime which is more responsive to the agency's operational requirements.

In terms of accountability, the agency will fall under the minister of heritage. She, in turn, will be accountable to Parliament.

Moreover, the Canadian parks agency will fall under the Access to Information Act. The auditor general will be able to audit the agency at his discretion.

Bill C-29 also commits the agency to hold consultations on a biannual basis. This will allow Canadians to share their views on the agency's program and to participate in the management direction. This is especially important because we have to be very careful that development is also balanced with the environmental requirements to maintain the parks. The maintaining of our environment is also very important.

The agency will consult directly with parties that may be affected by any new fees. This hopefully will bring more reasonable fees for Canadians to enter into the national parks.

The bottom line is that Parliament, the auditor general and, most important, the Canadian people will be able to hold this new agency accountable. What we have is a bill asking for the creation of an agency that will be fully self-sufficient, more efficient, more flexible and fully accountable.

It is also my hope that this new agency will contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of Canada's natural environment. This will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the many natural wonders that Canada has to offer.

I was proud to be in this House supporting the legislation introduced by the government which established the Saguenay marine park, the first marine park in the world. It was my pleasure to support that bill. I firmly believe that we have a moral duty to preserve Canada's natural environment.

In closing, the official opposition is committed to having our national parks and heritage sites administered in an accountable, efficient and cost effective manner. For the reasons outlined above I see little reason why I should not support Bill C-29.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke at the beginning of his debate about hope, and at the end he also spoke of hope. How much hope do we have in the government?

I listen to this party every day which talks about the obligations of the government and the patronage appointments. Now we are allowing another agency with a chief executive office to be created by this government for another plum patronage appointment. We are allowing the government to do that.

The other side will be going to question period raising an issue about appointments in the other place. How can people trust your point of view over what the Liberal government is proposing?

This is a capitalist form of commercialization of our national parks and eventually privatization when hon. members take their children, pay at the toll gate to lift the Stornoway gate up, enter Walt Disney national park and come out and negotiate the fee with the minister if she deems them to be of interest.

The agency does not create any assurances of your hopes of the ecological integrity of the national parks of increasing the amount of national parks that we have in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I remind hon. members that it works best if members address each other through the Chair. It tends to keep tempers down.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to the hon. member's question.

He is right, I said hope. I did not give a full commitment about that. I do hope the government will not build this thing up with a patronage appointment. Please do not do it.

He is right regarding the question about whether this agency is going to consult people. It has the ability to consult people and to talk to Canadians. There is the question of who has the input over this. There is still a bureaucratic tangle over there. Some will say they do not trust those people.

At least here we have an arm's length agency hopefully that Canadians can have an input in. It is accountable to Canadians. Hopefully it will put down the user fees and will address the environmental issues and other things that concern us with reference to running a smooth parks network in this country. That is important to us. Parks are a natural heritage. We have parks here that are world heritage sites. We are custodians of these parks for the people of the world.

[An hon. member]

The people will be the custodians, not private enterprise.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

We are saying that at least this agency is responsible to Parliament as well as listening to the Canadian people. Hopefully that addresses the hon. member's question.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting the evolution of this Liberal government's financing to its departments. In the last Parliament I was not here. I was out in the constituency and I was aware of what was going on. It financed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the tune of $100 million to set up 13 integrated proceeds of crime sections. The RCMP was forced to borrow that $100 million and is now in the process of paying it back.

I see there has been an evolution in this 36th Parliament to a full retention and reinvestment authority for all revenues. I wonder if this, in the hon. member's opinion, would be a good thing to extend to the RCMP to fight crime, to have the moneys retained and reinvested in fighting crime as opposed to paying it back to the Treasury Board.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what this has to do with this bill is that we are creating an agency which is responsible for keeping and administering the funds, not disappearing into the government coffers. I think that is what the hon. member is alluding to for the RCMP. This is a good point.

That is why we are supporting this one good idea of the government. Maybe this idea will spread to other institutions as well, including the RCMP, if it is feasible.

The government should start looking into this and doing these kinds of things more often.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I believe him to be a sincere member of Parliament. I believe that what he was stating was what he feels is accurate and true.

I appreciate that he is speaking on behalf of the minister, but he said that he knew we had a lot of questions about this bill but trust him, they will act in the best interests of Canadians. We could count on them reflecting the views of Canadians.

These are the same folks who were against NAFTA, for example. These are the same folks who were against the GST. When they got into government they became GST enthusiasts, NAFTA enthusiasts and now they are MAI enthusiasts. They even thought the GST was so good they would apply it in a blended sales tax throughout all of Atlantic Canada, knowing full well the people did not like that.

When a government says trust it, I become very suspicious. It is not a reflection on my hon. friend. When any government says trust it, it will act in our best interests, there is sufficient evidence to say that we ought to then panic. We then ought to say we know we are being conned, we know there is a snow job coming upon us.

Members can probably tell I do not support Bill C-29 at this point. I know today we are debating the principle of the bill and one ought to be generous when talking about the principle of the bill.

The bill says we should change the name of Parks Canada to the Canadian parks agency.

What is behind all of this? Why would he want to change the name Parks Canada? I suspect that if a global poll was done and citizens from Bangladesh, Dubai, Equador or wherever were asked: when you hear the name Canada what do you think about, what image comes to mind, it would probably be a toss up between a Mountie and some natural scenes, some park like settings, some pristine environment.

I think that is Canada. We are a geographic country, a country that is proud of our geographic heritage, the second largest country in the world. Canada is probably the most untouched pristine environment to be found anywhere on the globe. Our national parks system epitomizes that. Our national parks are sort of a Canadian icon that we leave for future generations.

I am pleased to say that we have expanded a number of national parks over the last number of years in some very crucial areas. I am proud to say that I am from British Columbia, a province that has established more parks than any political jurisdiction in the world, and for good reason. It is a tremendously and wonderfully beautiful province. Vast parts of it will now be preserved for generations and generations to come.

The theory of Parks Canada, or what is soon going to be called the Canadian Parks Agency, I think tells a great deal about Canada.

Is this act intended to improve the situation? From the government's point of view, I suspect it must think it is otherwise it probably would not introduce the act. Remember, these are the same folks who think the GST is a good idea and that the MAI is a good idea at this point, but I suspect they are going to change their minds on that eventually.

Although the government thinks it is a good idea let us be clear. Does it necessarily mean it is a good idea? The fact that we gave the Bronfmans a $500 million tax break does not necessarily mean that was a good decision taken by the government. Just the fact that it is a government sponsored bill does not necessarily say that this is in the best interest of Canadians.

Let us also acknowledge that this bill involves a great deal of Canada, 31 national parks, 786 historical sites, a number of historical canal systems, 661 sites that are managed by third parties that are ecologically or environmentally significant, 165 heritage railroad stations, 31 heritage river systems and others.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect you and I would agree that the things that distinguish our country from virtually any other country is what we are talking about today, the natural geographic and historical significant parts of our country.

We take this very seriously. As New Democrats we have studied Bill C-29. I want to say the hon. member for Churchill has spent hours and hours speaking with people who are involved in the parks system, speaking with people involved in Heritage Canada, knowledgeable people on the ground as well as in the park theory field. On balance, he tells us as caucus colleagues that he is concerned about this bill, that the kind of impression that he gleans from these extensive consultations is one of concern and worry.

As a matter of fact, not many people think this is a good idea. I suspect that we would save a great deal of trouble by just cancelling Bill C-29 when we come to the vote but I am not so neophyte to think that is likely to happen.

The background papers on Bill C-29 say that this is a contribution toward simplicity, toward administrative efficiency, toward human resource flexibility, toward improved financial procedures. These are euphemisms. These are words that George Orwell would have liked because when it says here human resource flexibility, what it means is that we want to lower wages and salaries of the people who work with Parks Canada, we want to pay people less.

Why do I have this idea? Why do I have this perhaps questionable or cynical approach to this human resource flexibility? It is because this is what is going on now with the Department of National Defence, that all the hundreds and thousands of civilian employees who work now on bases, who are paid a decent wage because of the collective agreements that have been negotiated year after year, are now being told they are all gone. We are going to privatize and rather than pay $15 an hour, employees are now going to collect a minimum wage of probably $5.50 depending on their provincial jurisdiction. That is the reality. That is what is taking place today.

If that is what the Department of National Defence is doing, why would we not think that is what this Canadian Parks Agency is going to do? That is what the government is doing, so we assume that what they do in national defence they will do now with the national parks agency.

Therefore, when the government talks about human resource flexibility, let us be clear that is what it means. We are going to have fewer people working in our parks, pay them less and have less dedicated personnel.

As someone who has used our national park system from coast to coast, both national and provincial, spending a good deal of the summer hiking, camping, canoeing and riding in these pristine environmental areas, if there is a group of men and women who epitomize the best of Canada it is those people who work in our park system. They are dedicated to the environment and to the work that they do.

However, when we pay someone the minimum wage as opposed to a decent salary now in Parks Canada, what is the signal we are sending? The signal is that we do not think much of this job. We are saying it is a low end job, a minimum wage job and a job that anybody can do. We are saying it is a job we attach little significance to. That is what we are telling them.

I do not think this is the way it should be in our society but in our society, which is a money based, capital based society, we measure people's value by what they are paid. Hockey players who are paid $3 million are the superstars or rock stars. Others, I think it is fair to say, who are paid minimum wage are not normally those people who we hold in high esteem as a society. I think it should be the reverse but that is the reality.

We talk about improved financial procedures. That is scary language. If there is any language that should get us totally upset in this House it is when the government starts talking about improved financial procedures because everyone knows what that means. It means less money. It means it is going to put less money into Parks Canada and it is going to make the people who use our parks pay for them in user fees.

If someone is a wealthy person or from a high income family and somebody tells them that in order to use the parks they will have to pay $10 to canoe down the river, $20 per night for firewood and $50 to park a tent for a day or two, it is no big deal. However, for increasing numbers of Canadians who see their disposable incomes going down and down, and for many people to zero and below, if we pass this legislation we are going to put access to Canada's national parks out of the reach of many, many Canadians.

An increasing number of Canadians who fall into the poor and low income category will not have the benefit of using our national parks because they will not be able to afford them.

How many of us as members of Parliament already hear regularly from our constituents complaining about the costs of accessing parks? A family with four and five kids who want to go camping for two weeks in a national park will not be able to afford it. With this legislation, we are now going to make it even more difficult.

Section 24 of the act deals with the fees. It states that “the minister must consult with any member who he or she considers to be interested”. That is the consultation. Who is that? Maybe she is going to consult with the hon. House leader for the government. Maybe it is going to be the CEO of the Royal Bank. We do not know.

If we look at the track record, we can only assume that this does not mean good news. This does not mean that fees are going to go down. It means I suppose how quickly they are going to increase. Is that the kind of country we have become? Is that the kind of place Canada has become? Are people going to have to pay to go canoeing or to walk down the paths in our parks? Yes it is and this legislation will simply make it worse.

This legislation is scary. I suspect that the government wants to get this through the House really quickly before anybody figures out what it is all about. I assume that my friends in the Reform Party, in the Bloc and in the Conservative Party will vote against it, and at least enough Liberals who are concerned about the environment and the future of Parks Canada will vote against. However, we will have to wait and see.

The government says that Bill C-29 is not about privatization. That is simply not true. It is not called privatization, it is called commercialization. It is a new word. Privatization is now considered by an increasing number of people to be bad news, not a good word, so it decided to change the word and call it something else. We will call it a commercialization. Fair enough. That is what it means. That is what it is.

It simply means that increasingly we will be turning the parks into some kind of a quasi-business operation. That is not what Canada is all about.

I want to close my remarks by saying let me look at this government. This year we are going to see cuts to Parks Canada's budget. This is at a time when the government proudly tells us that we are in a balanced budget situation.

As a matter of fact, we have some billions of dollars in surplus. There is so much money rolling in these days that the government is not quite sure what the surplus is. It is not positive. Next year, it looks like it will be at some unimaginable level.

If that is the problem the government has, if it does not know how much money it is collecting, why would it continue to cut services in Canada's national parks? Why would it continue to lay off park employees? Why would it continue to make life difficult for people who are trying to run our heritage sites if that is the situation? They tell us it is.

I suspect at the Liberal convention in the next few hours, we will see most Liberals with their arms in slings come Monday because they will be slapping themselves on the back for days on end, twisting themselves out of shape to say what a great job they have done balancing the budget. Still they want to impose this kind of damage on our park system. There are some serious inconsistencies here.

I could go on but I think I have probably said enough at this introductory stage. To repeat, I think the beginning of the massive change game, if there was another symbol other than the national parks, is the RCMP.

There is no other police force in the world any better than the RCMP. It represents the best of Canada, both past and present. I suspect it will also represent the best in the future.

What did the government decide to do? It decided to sell the rights of making money off the RCMP to Walt Disney. Disney now has the right to market Mounties around the world. There are little Mountie dolls, Mountie hats, Mountie statues in China, in Taiwan and it is all done by the great corporation of Disney.

If there is anything that is kind of embarrassing, I will bet the House leader for the government that there is not a single Canadian, other than himself, who thinks this is a good deal, who would actually stand up and say that one of the best things we have done as a Liberal government was to hand over the RCMP selling rights to Disney.

The government endorsed it. It liked this idea. I can imagine the members getting all excited and having a party that night when that happened. That is where we are. “We sold out the image Mountie to Walt Disney. Okay, we have done that”. There goes a little Canadian heritage out the window. “Why not privatize the national parks? We will call it commercialization or we will call it a special agency”.

I think I will leave it at that and simply end by saying that as New Democrats—thanks to our critic, the hon. member for Churchill—we have looked at this bill. We have talked about it in caucus at some length.

I can honestly say that we cannot find a single good point in this legislation. I will watch because, as I sit down, I suspect we will get to the vote. I will watch my friends in the Reform Party. They are sensitive people in certain areas.

I have not found any yet, but somewhere down there there is a sensibility or a sensitivity. We will watch them because this is the chance. How do we vote in terms of the future of Parks Canada?

Do we turn it into the Canadian parks agency, a private corporation to make money now out of our national parks system, or do we continue in the great tradition of Parks Canada to preserve our natural environment for generations and generations to come?

This is the question. We will decide it on this vote.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in the financial aspects of this bill. Therefore I will make my question to the speaker quite simple.

What effect does he see, if any, of the MAI agreement that could come down on our national parks system in Canada? Is there a possibility of foreign interests getting involved in our parks system?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very thoughtful and insightful question. I think he knows the answer but has given me the opportunity to say what I think.

Obviously the answer is yes. According to a provision in the MAI any law that is passed like the recent law on MMT and that eliminates the right of a private corporation to make profits will be considered to be a form of expropriation. Consequently today the Government of Canada is in court, so to speak, with Ethyl Corporation of the United States because it is being sued for passing legislation against the MMT.

Let us imagine a significant ecological site next door to a potential mine. A decision is being taken, after the MAI is signed and after a German mining company has shown interest in developing the mine, to turn that area into a park for future generations. That decision would be challenged under the provisions of the MAI as a form of expropriation to that theoretical German mining company. The government would have to compensate with hundreds of millions of dollars to do that.

That is only part of the problem. The real problem is the chill effect of that threat. The government knows that if it makes a park of that area the German mining company will sue it for hundreds of millions of dollars. It probably will not make it into a park although it knows it should. In consideration of future generations of Canadians the government knows that it must be made into a park, but because it knows it will be sued and it will lose, it is chilled and will not do it. It will chicken out.

I guess we can call it the chicken out factor in the MAI that I would be concerned about. I appreciate the question from my hon. friend.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the NDP member from British Columbia. I am happy we are on the same side of an issue, which shows that people can get past politics to serve the country.

The member has some beautiful national parks in his province. I would like to think we have one in the province of Saskatchewan. The lack of a long range plan for parks across Canada bothers me more than anything else in the legislation. Could the member comment on how he sees this shortfall in the lack of a long range plan for parks across the country?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to have these thoughtful questions coming our way. I appreciate the seriousness of my colleague's question. When I think of the great province of Saskatchewan, one of the first images that comes to mind is the Waskesiu Park, one of the most beautiful in Canada. The member should be proud to live in such a province.

His question is well taken. We lack a national park policy that makes any sense just as we lack a national waterways policy or a national highway policy. Let us think of the value of our national park system and related parks, the value of waterways and the value of highways in Canada compared with any country in the world. It is rather peculiar to think that we do not have a national policy in these areas. The glaring shortcoming, as my friend point out, is well taken. We need to have a national policy to build the kind of legislation that allegedly is attached to the bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?