Debates of May 28th, 1998

Petitions

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure no hon. member would fault the opposition whip for diligence and I am sorry he did not hear me call petitions at the time.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Parks Canada Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are eight motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-29.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1 to 5.

Group No. 2: Motion No. 6.

Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 7 and 8.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 5 to the House.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-29, in Clause 6, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 5 the following:

“(1.1) When implementing policies of the Government of Canada, the Agency's priority shall be the conservation and the ecological, historic and cultural integrity of national parks, national historic sites and other protected heritage areas, and it shall reconcile this priority with the development of tourism and commercial activities.”

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, for the Secretary of State (Parks)]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-29 be amended by adding after line 44 on page 6 the following new clause:

“8.1(1) The Minister shall, at least once every two years, convene a round table of persons interested in matters for which the Agency is responsible to advise the Minister on the performance by the Agency of its responsibilities under section 6.

(2) The Minister shall respond within 180 days to any written recommendations submitted during a round table convened under subsection (1).”

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-29, in Clause 9, be amended a ) by replacing line 1 on page 7 with the following:

“9. (1) Notwithstanding section 9 of the Depart-” b ) by adding after line 8 on page 7 the following:

“(2) When the Agency procures goods and services, it shall comply with guidelines or rules established by Treasury Board on calls for tender.”

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, for the Secretary of State (Parks)]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-29, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 43 on page 7 and line 1 on page 8 with the following:

“(4) The Chief Executive Officer may dele-”

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-29, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 7 the following:

“(4.1) Not later than 90 days following any consultation held by the Chief Executive Officer under subsection (4), the Chief Executive Officer shall make public any recommendations put forward during the consultation and the responses made by the Chief Executive Officer to any such recommendations.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-29 at report stage and to present, in a group, Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 5 appearing in today's notice paper.

Motion No. 1 reads as follows:

(1.1) When implementing policies of the Government of Canada, the Agency's priority shall be the conservation and the ecological, historic and cultural integrity of national parks, national historic sites and other protected heritage areas, and it shall reconcile this priority with the development of tourism and commercial activities.

Several witnesses brought to our attention the fact that there could perhaps be a risk to parks if particular attention was not paid to the first part of this amendment.

Naturally, we are not opposed to there being a reasonable level of tourism and commercial activities within parks. However, we would not want to see a wish to realize large profits or make parks and historic sites cost effective result in so many people being admitted to parks and so many activities taking place that ecological integrity was compromised. It was this point in particular that people raised.

Neither, of course, should the historic and cultural aspect be allowed to suffer and tourism and commercial activities given the upper hand solely out of a desire to make parks cost effective.

Motion No. 3 addresses a very technical issue, suggesting that line 1 on page 7 be replaced with the following:

9.(1) Notwithstanding section 9 of the Depart-

We then suggest that the following be added after line 8 on page 7:

(2) When the Agency procures goods and services, it shall comply with guidelines or rules established by Treasury Board on calls for tender.

This was another concern of several witnesses who appeared before the committee or contacted it. Given that Parks Canada will become separate from the Department of Canadian Heritage and its management autonomous, we fear that the agency will use the reorganization of personnel and the powers delegated to the chief executive officer to subcontract many activities.

We want to make sure that, throughout Canada, Treasury Board rules are scrupulously followed, especially in calls for tender. Of course, under Treasury Board rules, certain minimum amounts do not require public calls for tender. When we talk about abiding by Treasury Board rules, that is implicit.

As regards calls for tenders, we want to be sure that, even if a park is located in a sparsely populated area, which is the case of many of our parks, the rules of Treasury Board will be followed.

According to a number of the witnesses we heard during committee hearings, it appears important to add the amendment set out in Motion No. 5. In a way, I am delighted to see that even the government is proposing an amendment, in Motion No. 2, which is quite similar to what I am proposing.

When we vote, if I have properly understood the Speaker's ruling, if Motion No. 2 is carried, my Motion No. 5 will automatically be lost. Members will understand that we will support Motion No. 2, because the minor difference with it concerns the time limit for the response. The difference can be fairly significant, but sometimes a response can be a while coming. We would have preferred a response within 90 days. The minister proposes 180 days for the response. Maybe we thought he could respond faster, but it is better to allow the time than to have no response at all.

If the problem raised by the forum or the consultations held were a matter of urgency, perhaps we should consider counting on the fact that the minister would recognize this and realize that a more urgent response is required. We hope the time limit he sets will not be considered a minimum and that the 180 days will be considered the maximum. I think this is important. In any case, there has to be a response. This was what those who testified before us requested.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to address all five motions and deal with the various arguments put forward by my hon. colleague.

I begin with the first motion that was just proposed. We oppose this amendment, because we feel it is redundant. The proposed amendment reflects what is already contained in paragraph (1) and the new paragraph (m) in the preamble. More to the point, the intent behind the proposed amendment is already captured in clause 6.(1), which states, and I quote:

6.(1) The Agency is responsible for the implementation of policies of the Government of Canada that relate to national parks, national historic sites and other protected heritage areas and heritage protection programs.

By and large, such policies are already addressed in Parks Canada's Guiding Principles and Operational Policies , a document that was tabled in Parliament and approved in 1994.

This document addresses Parks Canada's key responsibilities in terms of respecting ecological and commemorative—not cultural—integrity, and how these are addressed at the park and site level in concert with accommodating visitor use, tourism and park development.

We also oppose Motion No. 3 because we find it redundant as well. The Parks Canada Agency is defined as a departmental corporation under the Financial Administration Act. As such, it must comply with Treasury Board's contracting policies and with the Government Contracts Regulations. Contracting limits and procedures are clearly set out in these regulations.

It is to be noted that clause 9 merely allows the agency to procure, with the approval of the Treasury Board and the governor in council, goods and services from organizations other than the government's common service organizations, such as PWGSC, when this is beneficial from an economic point of view.

All the agency's contracting activities, whether with common service organizations or with other bodies, will still be subject to the government contract regulations.

As for the second motion, we are proposing that Bill C-29 be amended to reflect better the concerns of various people who appeared as witnesses before us, that every two years the minister will convoke a round table of persons interested in matters for which the agency is responsible to advise the minister on the performance by the agency of its responsibilities under section 6 and that the minister must respond within 180 days to the comments made by the round table.

This section replaces former subsection 12(4). The change really means in ordinary language that this is no longer a forum convened by the chief executive officer of the new Parks Canada agency but by the minister. It provides certainty that a round table will occur at least every two years. It also says that the recommendations will be responded to in a timely fashion. We chose 180 days because that is to be found in other responses to environmental proposals.

That takes me to Motion No. 4 in which we are proposing:

That Bill C-29, clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 37 to 43 on page 7 and line 1 on page 8 with the following:

“(4) The Chief Executive Officer may dele-”

This is simply designed to delete subsection 12(4) in favour of the new clause which I just discussed in terms of convening round tables at least once every two years. That simply makes it possible.

Motion No. 5 is consistent with the two motions to which I have just spoken. As I mentioned earlier it means that there is a report back within 180 days which is consistent with the way we do things, for example, under the environment assessment act. I think that covers the group.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to speak to report stage. It is different from what I am used to. I find it quite interesting so please bear with me.

I support Motion No. 1 put forth by my hon. colleague from Rimouski—Mitis. It is very important that we not just concentrate on the economic benefits that a national park brings but also on the ecological and environmental issues that are part of the whole system. For this reason I support the motion.

On Motion No. 2 regarding consultation, many witnesses who came before the committee were adamant about the fact that it is important for consultations to take place. Consultation is only one aspect of it. Consultation and not taking action or recognizing that consultations took place amount to nothing other than grandstanding.

I hope the government when the round table discussions take place will take into consideration seriously the recommendations that are put forth. Therefore I agree with Motion No. 2.

Motion No. 5 put forth by my hon. colleague for Rimouski—Mitis goes hand in hand with Motion No. 2. If we have a round table and people have the chance to put their views forth, by having to report within 90 days will more or less put on public record that the discussions took place. It will have a positive impact on the government taking some of those recommendations to heart. Therefore I support this motion as well.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion No. 1, this motion is unnecessary because the priorities already set in the preamble of the bill can be found in subclauses (f) to (m).

Motions Nos. 2 and 4 have been grouped together. I stand in opposition to those motions because as currently written in the bill consultations would be undertaken by the agency and so it should be. Changing that to consultations being undertaken by the minister will consolidate power further in the hands of cabinet. That is not wise. The direction the bill was taking in the first place was correct so the intent of Motions Nos. 2 and 4 is wrong. I oppose the motions.

The remaining motion in Group No. 1 is Motion No. 3. That motion is unnecessary because goods and services procured by the agency would already be on the recommendation of Treasury Board.

I support the intent of Motion No. 5. The idea of trying to promote openness and transparency with respect to public consultations by the agency is a good one. There is no existing requirement in the bill to do that.

Hopefully the House will have the wisdom to oppose Motions Nos. 2 and 4 so that we may vote in favour of Motion No. 5. Thereby public consultations will be done by the agency as they should be in an open and transparent fashion for the public.

I have covered all the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. 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. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. 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 of the motion will please say yea.