Debates of May 28th, 1998

Parks Canada Act

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Motion No. 2 was carried and accordingly Motion No. 4 is carried on division. The need for putting the question on Motion No. 5 is dispensed with by reason of the votes already taken.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like a clarification because everything is going so quickly. In keeping with the decision of the Chair, I understood that the division on Motion No. 2 applied to Motion No. 5.

[An hon. member]

That is what he did.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Our document refers to Motion No. 5. If Motion No. 2 were defeated, we would have to vote on Motion No. 4.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The document has been changed. A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motion No. 4. If Motion No. 2 had been defeated, there would have been a vote on Motion No. 5, but Motion No. 2 was adopted, so there is no vote on Motion No. 5.

There were separate divisions on Motions Nos. 1 and 3. We put these motions to a vote and the division was deferred in both cases.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have the same documents. Yet, these are documents supplied by the Table. We did not rise earlier to call for a vote, and it was agreed to on division. If we had had the same documents as you, five members of the Bloc Quebecois would have risen to call for a vote on Motion No. 2.

Given that we were not supplied with the right information, I would like the question on Motion No. 2 to be put again so that the Bloc Quebecois may express its opinion and five members rise to demand a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps we could settle the matter this way. Could we agree the vote that was carried on division on Motion No. 2 be deemed to have been a vote demanded and the division deferred until a later time? Will that solve the problem for everybody?

Is there unanimous consent to treat it has having been put before the House, the division demanded and deferred?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think that will solve the problem.

Group No. 2 includes a motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-29, in Clause 23, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 13 the following:

“(3) When setting a fee under subsection (2), the Minister shall ensure that local residents enjoy a preferential fee.

(4) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, define the expression “local residents”.”

Mr. Speaker, with the motions in Group No. 2, we are proposing that clause 23 be amended.

Clause 23 reads as follows:

23.(1) The Minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this section, fix the fees or the manner of calculating the fees to be paid for a service or the use of a facility provided by the Agency.

(2) Fees for a service or the use of a facility that are fixed under subsection (1) may not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the service or the use of the facility.

We discussed at length, in committee, pointing out that we think it extremely important that local residents be allowed access to parks and historic sites for a reasonable fee. We would therefore like the following added as a third paragraph:

(3) When setting a fee under subsection (2), the Minister shall ensure that local residents enjoy a preferential fee.

(4) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, define the expression “local residents”.

A number of us are really very concerned. The government, of course, does not share our concern, but we are extremely worried that the government will add all sorts of hidden taxes and adopt a business mentality toward parks and historic sites, eventually wanting the agency to be self-funding. That way, it will receive more money for interfering in provincial jurisdictions, the way it has been doing so far with its budget surplus.

We want local residents to be taken into consideration, and to have access to their immediate environment. They used to get in for free. Since Parks Canada has invaded our environment, we are obliged to pay ever greater amounts to enjoy the beauty of nature.

We want consideration to be given to a preferential fee for local residents, so that the price they are charged for admission to our parks and historic sites is always kept to a minimum.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are against this amendment. We are, of course, in favour of involving local communities as users of the parks and sites of great value to Parks Canada. We certainly have nothing against local communities.

However, Parks Canada already offers incentives such as annual passes and early bird specials at many parks and sites. Such incentives usually benefit local people the most.

This approach reflects the intent of the proposed change without legalizing a discriminatory clause that would treat one group of Canadians differently from another.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on these motions.

As I have indicated on several occasions already, I am not a stranger to the parks issue. My first job was with Parks Canada. I was also working for Parks Canada in 1997 and had to quit after the election.

I am in a good position to talk about entrance fees. My job at the Kouchibouguac National Park was at the park entrance. I was the person who collected the fees from both tourists and locals who came to visit the park. These people used to live in the park.

We must look back at what was said to park residents who were expropriated to convince them to leave. We know it was not the money. My father was offered $6,600 to leave his 50 or so acres of land in Kouchibouguac park. Money clearly was not what would make people leave. We were told that it would create jobs, well paid jobs, protect this beautiful wilderness, this great land on which we lived, to ensure it would still be there hundreds of years from now for future generations to enjoy.

There are children today whose parents were expropriated from national parks across this country, including Kouchibouguac, from which I was expropriated. Those children have no chance to go to the beautiful beaches they were promised in 1969, nor to visit the historic sites, or to use the hiking and biking paths.

Today it costs a fortune to get into a park. One must wonder for whom the parks were created. The reason to have a park is to preserve and conserve nature. It must be realized also, however, that many national parks have been created in areas of very high unemployment. People were promised good jobs, and now we see the work being contracted out and people being paid less so they are forced to leave and give up their jobs.

When these people come to visit the parks, moreover, they have to turn around and go home. I have seen people doing just that when I worked at the entrance. Sometimes I paid their entrance fees out of my own pocket because I saw that there were little kids who were not going to be able to use the beach because their parents did not have enough money. I am not making this up—that is what I saw between 1981 and 1996, and the fees keep going up.

I must say as well that our parks are not as well maintained as they used to be, because the desire seems to be to make parks into industries, to make them revenue generated. Conservation is no longer the priority, making money is, because the government is cutting the funding allocated to the parks. Nature and conservation are therefore suffering.

We must step back and look at what is going on. Having an agency is not a bad idea, but what lies behind the idea of an agency is dangerous. Why are jobs guaranteed for only two years? The work has to be done, whether it is an agency or a department that is in charge. There is no reason to make our employees feel insecure.

The work has to be done. The park entry fees must not be raised any further and thought should be given to special fees for local residents. People expropriated to make room for the parks can no longer afford to go there. Others who were not expropriated when the park was created still live in the community and they have the same problem.

Tourism is all very well, it helps the economy, and I cannot dispute that. Hundreds of thousands of people come to visit our parks. This helps the economy and we want it to continue, but we must also look at the reality. Who has access to parks these days? As with just about any other government policy, the wealthy are the ones who continue to have access to services, whether we are talking about health care, education or national parks. For those who have money, things are just fine. Everything is there for them. But for people who have less money, it is harder to have access to health care, education, services for the elderly and parks.

I definitely support a motion that would look at the real situation in the villages located close to national parks. It is important that local people have access to the parks, and one of the agency's priorities should be to be fair to those who live close to the parks and those who lost their land to these parks. We must give back to these people the access that they enjoyed before. The problem is one of lost access. We must give to the communities that live close to national parks the access they used to enjoy.