Debates of June 2nd, 1998

Parks Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating today at third reading Bill C-29 introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the short title of which was National Parks Act.

I say “was” because, faced with the unanimity of those who testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and of the committee members themselves, the secretary of state responsible for Parks Canada finally bowed to the evidence and accepted the amendment passed by the committee suggesting that the title of the bill be changed to an “act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence”.

Clause 1 of this bill sets out the short title of the act as follows: “Parks Canada Act”.

After holding public hearings in which a number of witnesses raised objections to this bill, questioning Heritage Canada and justice officials to get a different perspective on how to interpret certain clauses and to address the objections raised, and asking the secretary of state responsible for Parks Canada about the government's objectives in establishing this agency, the committee proceeded to the clause by clause study of the bill.

In order to take into account all the work done by committee members, we then set out to examine the merits of several amendments proposed by the various parties. To this end, at report stage, we used a working paper made available to the House of Commons. This was an updated version of Bill C-29, reprinted as amended by the standing committee.

With few exceptions, the amendments in question are mainly changes of a technical nature or designed to ensure the text said the same thing in both official languages.

As for the additions, they fit for the most part into three categories. First, additions to clarify a clause to facilitate the interpretation of the act. A fine example of this type of addition can be found at clause 5.1, which clarifies the status of the direction referred to in clauses 4 and 5 of the original bill. It reads as follows “A direction by the Minister referred to in sections 4 and 5 is not a statutory instrument for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act”.

A second type of addition is for the purpose of improving the bill. There are several examples of these, including clause 21, which calls for the creation of a new parks and historic sites account. There was an addition to subsection 3(c), the possibility that this account could be used, not only to maintain and develop, but also to “restore any national park, national historic site or other protected heritage area that has not yet attained full operational status”.

In clause 32, ecological integrity has been added. A significant addition was made to clause 33, to enhance the transparency of the agency's administration. It calls for the chief executive officer to submit a corporate plan for the agency before March 31 of each year, and that 30 days after its approval by Treasury Board, the Minister must table a summary of the plan in each house of parliament.

To this was added, and I quote “at which time the plan shall be made available to the public on request”. This phrase was added to the bill at the request of a number of witnesses who wished to have access to this type of document.

Another significant addition was to clause 36.1, which reflects an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and reads as follows “The Official Languages Act applies to the Agency and to its subcontractors”.

This addition was to initiate lengthy discussions between representatives of the Department of Justice and the committee members. We also debated it here at the report stage, when a member of the government, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie, asked for withdrawal of the amendment to clause 36.1 passed by the committee, and its replacement with another amendment.

The new clause 36.1 ought therefore to read as follows “For greater certainty, the Official Languages Act applies to the agency and the agency has the duty, under section 25 of that Act, to ensure that, where services are provided or made available by another person or organization on its behalf, any member of the public in Canada or elsewhere can communicate with and obtain those services from that person or organization in either official language, in any case where those services, if provided by the agency, would be required under part IV of the Official Languages Act to be provided in either official language”.

I followed with interest the presentation made earlier by my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier. I remember the remarks made by Reform members, including the chief opposition whip, who, offended, rose in this House to accuse the Bloc Quebecois of having only French on the doors of its offices to indicate the offices of its party leader, its House leader and so on.

As I walked through the corridors, I realized that those living in glass houses should not throw stones, because they risk having them thrown back. Members should know that, if they go to hallway C on the sixth floor of the Centre Block, they will find a sign saying “Deputy Whip of the Official Opposition” in English only on the whip's door.

A third way to change the law and add details to it is to amend the laws affected by the passage of a bill. In the case in point, Bill C-29 amends the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, among others, by amending the definitions of “park warden” and “superintendent” to align them with those in this bill.

Some of the amendments we introduced were rejected either by the committee or by the government majority. Although creation of the agency offers certain benefits, it also raises concerns.

The federal government has shown us for the past five years its strong tendency to pass its problems on to others. Sometimes it sends them to the provinces. Sometimes it gets around them by creating new agencies and requiring them to be more cost effective.

This is why we wanted to make sure that the Parks Canada Agency struck a balance between its priority mission and its concern to be cost effective. Our amendment read as follows, and I quote:

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.

I have to say we have a real concern. We all know about the lure of money. If the government does not maintain parliamentary appropriations at an adequate level so the agency has the means to fulfil its mandate, the agency will have to find a way to do so at any cost.

That is why an amendment such as the one we proposed could have been useful for the agency. Indeed, it could have used it to present its case to the Treasury Board and get the funds it needs to meet the challenge it is faced with. Unfortunately, our amendment was rejected.

We also proposed another amendment which made a lot of sense. Generally speaking, local communities lose part of their environment when parks or historic sites are created. That is why we asked the government to show some compassion towards these communities by giving them access to these parks and sites at a reduced fee.

Unfortunately, this government is obsessed with money. It rejected our amendment, even though the arguments used to justify its decision did not convince me at all.

Rather, they made me realize that the government is aware that, in most cases, visits are made primarily by local people. It is with these local people, who make more frequent visits than tourists from outside the region, the province or even the country, that Parks Canada will make money, through entry fees. So, in this case as in others, the government is opting for the status quo.

The result is that we have a slightly better bill instead of one that could have been greatly improved, if the government had not used its majority to impose on us decisions that were made not by those elected to represent the people of this country and look after their interests, but by bureaucrats and public servants who are too close to their own reality to have the proper perspective to make the best decisions.

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 Parks Canada 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.

Briefly, the three reasons the government gives for the creation of a new agency to replace Parks Canada are as follows: to simplify structures, to improve administrative efficiency and to 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 financial statements of the agency are to be examined by the auditor general, who will report to the government and will also provide an assessment of the agency's mandate, objectives and business plan. The parks Canada agency will remain subject to the legislation governing official languages, employment equity and human rights, access to information and privacy.

As for the agency's funding, the legislation will give it a number of new financial powers, particularly: a budget spread over two years, which is better suited to investing in the development of parks and historic sites; the power to retain and reinvest all proceeds with the exception of fines; the creation of a dedicated permanent fund from parliamentary appropriations and the sale of surplus property. This account will be used to finance new national parks and historic sites. Finally, the agency may advance funds for the unplanned purchase of land when favourable conditions present themselves. These advances must be repaid with interest.

As for human resources management, the agency will be a separate employer under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The director will be empowered to appoint employees and to define the conditions of employment of agency staff, particularly negotiation of a collective agreement and the creation of a classification and staffing system.

Hopefully, these changes will give the agency the necessary flexibility to develop a human resources management system better suited to its operational context. The parks and historic sites system is spread across the entire country, operates year round and around the clock in a number of different time zones, and employs many seasonal, permanent and part time workers. All employees whose duties are transferred to the Parks Canada agency will receive an offer of employment. Their present jobs are guaranteed for two years by Treasury Board.

According to the federal government, the creation of an agency responsible for Canada's parks will fulfil the present mission of the Parks Canada program of Canadian Heritage with greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness. This strikes us as an important commitment: enhanced efficiency for less money.

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 we are debating today at third reading is the result of that exercise. The government reached the conclusion that the best way to ensure the objectives of Parks Canada were met was to create the Parks Canada 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 bill, since 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.

The government has assured us that this bill is not the first step toward the privatization of parks. We were very concerned that the Parks Canada agency might be the first step toward the privatization of parks. I want to say it here in the House so it will be officially recorded in Hansard. The government has assured us that it has absolutely no intention of privatizing Parks Canada.

When he appeared before the Canadian heritage committee, on November 20, the secretary of state responsible for Parks Canada said, and I quote:

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.

One of the Bloc Quebecois' main concerns about this bill is to ensure that, once in operation, the agency will maintain access to parks for everyone. This bill shows the unequivocal will of the government to increase user fees in parks, even though taxpayers already contribute through taxes. There has to be a reasonable limit to the fee increases imposed on visitors.

We put forward the idea that people living close to these parks should enjoy a preferential rate, but the government rejected our amendment.

The agency should use its increased revenues from user fees, royalties or the sale of assets to provide more services, better fulfil its mandate, or develop its activities. The anticipated increase in revenues should not be used by the government to justify a further reduction of parliamentary appropriations for the agency.

A fair balance must be maintained between the revenues from taxes paid by taxpayers, and those from the fees they have to pay when they visit these parks and sites. If we continually increase fees, soon there will not be enough visitors and Parks Canada will have a hard time keeping these parks, sites and historic monuments in good shape.

We also want to ensure that the agency's financial objectives and the obvious desire of the federal government to increase the number of visitors to ensure greater economic benefits do not lead to overuse of our parks and historic sites.

We know how difficult it sometimes is to keep sites in decent shape because too many people have been allowed in all at once and there is not enough time for proper maintenance. We would like to be sure that the agency balances the need to preserve and maintain natural or historic sites against the increase in the number of visitors and the related expansion of tourism and commercial activities.

The Bloc Quebecois is not alone in expressing the concerns I have just mentioned. In November 1996, the auditor general presented a meaty report to parliament on the protection of Canada's national heritage. The auditor general had examined the systems established by Parks Canada to maintain and enhance the ecological integrity of national parks. I am delighted that the government has agreed to add a provision to one of the bill's clauses to the effect that the Parks Canada Agency will have the mandate of preserving the ecological integrity of national parks.

In 1996 the auditor general pointed out that park management plans place more emphasis on economic and social factors than 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 adopt a sensible management approach, based on the ecosystems.

In this regard, a number of witnesses appeared before the committee to express their concerns. I hope that the Parks Canada agency, which can obtain the minutes of our meetings, will read them carefully, analyze them and take them into consideration when developing its policies.

Since the auditor general's report, Parks Canada has taken a number of corrective measures and, last fall, when the secretary of state forwarded to us Parks Canada's response to some of the auditor general's criticisms, it was clear that it had truly made an effort.

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 need to be updated, and the policies on ecological conditions need to be implemented on an ongoing basis as well. The environmental objectives set in the act must result in concrete measures if they are to be achieved, regardless of budget constraints. I do hope that the Parks Canada Agency can really fulfil that part of its mandate.

Parks Canada designed ambitious development plans to complete the network of national parks, expand the number of national historic sites, and create marine conservation areas. Currently, 24 of the 39 natural regions defined by Parks Canada are represented in the network, and the objective is to develop the 15 remaining regions by the year 2000.

That objective seems quite ambitious, considering the pace at which Parks Canada operates. Still, even though its pace may seem slow, Parks Canada should not act precipitously but take the time to meet the needs of the communities, instead of trying to please bureaucrats and technocrats.

There is a case in point, which we will soon discuss, when we deal with another bill on a park in the Northwest Territories that sets boundaries which do not at all reflect what is good for the community. But this is another issue which will be debated at another time.

The federal government claims that these objectives are attainable, thanks to the improved efficiency resulting from a restructuring exercise that will allow Parks Canada to do more with fewer resources. Developing the 15 remaining regions in two years sounds like sheer utopia. We hope that the government and the minister will not ask the Parks Canada agency to achieve this goal in less than two years, since we are almost half way through 1998.

The year 2000 will soon be here, and I think the Parks Canada agency must have the time it needs to develop these 15 regions at its own pace and to carry out the consultations necessary to involve the people concerned in their development.

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.

We let the government know that, when this bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, we wanted 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 were very satisfied on this point, since the representatives of these employees from all categories testified before the committee.

It would appear, from what we heard, that relations are excellent and that everything seems to be progressing in the best way possible, under the best conditions. We were assured that the tendering process for all Parks Canada agency contracts would be impartial and transparent in accordance with regulations. 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. It would appear we have guarantees here too.

We will support Bill C-29, which creates the Parks Canada agency. We will carefully monitor the establishment of this agency to ensure that everyone may work there and carry out the mandate given the Parks Canada agency in peace, friendship, solidarity and prosperity.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and speak to this particular piece of legislation which has come before the House. I am not the New Democratic Party's critic in this area but I do come from an island that has not one but two national parks located within its boundaries. This is of particular importance to the people of Cape Breton.

The Cape Breton Highlands National Park is contained in my riding. It contains some of the most spectacular scenery in the country and some of the most important plant growth and ecological—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you. I acknowledge the applause from my colleagues from Nova Scotia.

On the island of Cape Breton in the riding of my colleague from Bras d'Or is the national historic park the Fortress of Louisbourg which is of great importance to the heritage and history of this country.

When I stand to speak on this bill, I do so from the perspective of a resident who sees the importance of these parks to their own areas in many ways.

I start by addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis and the concerns of constituents in my riding and I think across the country on a fee structure for using national historic parks.

There has been some mention made that people who once resided in these parks gave up their land. It was a concern of the Bloc Quebecois member that those people be given reduced rates. I would go further and say that they be given free rates to the parks.

I can speak as one who represents people whose property was expropriated by the national government to ensure that there was a national park in Cape Breton to be used for the benefit of all Canadians. Indeed many people from all over the world visit that park.

Those people were farmers and fishermen, families who had lived on particular pieces of land for generations. The land represented their livelihood. They were prosperous farmers. They were prosperous fishermen. Their land bordered the coastline. They were self-sufficient. They farmed and fished all summer. They dried the fish in the winter and they preserved the goods from their farms.

That land was expropriated. It was expropriated for a good reason. It is important to preserve that area. Those individuals were relocated. They pay taxes to the Canadian government for the preservation of the parks. To ask them now to also pay a fee to enter land that was once their own is unfair. I know it will raise the hackles of the constituents in my riding. I have already received complaints about that very process.

As well I want to talk a little bit about the advisory council. We are creating an agency to manage the parks. We have heard that this is not a step. The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis quoted the secretary of state as saying that this was not a step to privatization. We have not gone far enough to include the public in the debate about the management of the parks and what role the community should have in that area.

I am concerned when we delegate authority to an agency in that we lose some accountability. I say that having just had some experience with Nav Canada corporation. Members in this House will remember that was a private corporation, admittedly different from an agency, set up to deal with the flight service stations in various airports. When I asked it for a report dealing with the safety of individuals in my community, I was told it is not the corporation's policy to make that report public and I could not see it even though I am a member of parliament.

I have some concerns when we say that we are going to move Parks Canada from the full administrative role that the government has in administering Parks Canada to an agency that may or may not be answerable. I recognize that the minister will have some authority. At the same time we need to make sure that every individual member in this House who has a request for information for that agency is entitled to receive the information immediately or as soon as possible.

This party has other concerns with regard to amendments that we put forward, some of which were accepted. I still have great concerns when it comes to the personnel in Parks Canada. As I read the act and what the government intends to do, it gives no great comfort to the employees of Parks Canada. They have already been cut back in terms of numbers, leaving those who are left to pick up the additional workload. They have had their wages frozen and rolled back. They have had their work increased for less money. I know from speaking to people who work for Parks Canada in my riding that there are serious morale concerns.

Now we are telling the individuals who work for Parks Canada that they are going to be answerable to a new agency. That agency we are told would simplify organizational structures, improve administrative efficiency and allow more flexible staffing and financial procedures. Given what these individuals have been through in the last six to eight years, it seems that they have legitimate concerns about what those phrases mean.

I think we can read into those phrases, contracting out of services, layoffs and seasonal work with reduced benefits. I think we can also read into them less money in the hands of the individuals who work in those parks and who are the citizens who have given up the development of that land for commercial enterprises in order to ensure that all Canadians can benefit from it. That causes concern for me as a representative of the people who work in Parks Canada and who live in the surrounding areas.

I have concerns about the increasing fees at Parks Canada. Let us not forget that we have a number of parks across this country. If we increase the fees, I would hope that we do not see the parks getting into some kind of competition with each other whereby certain incentives will have to be offered at the Cape Breton Highlands national park to entice tourists from the new park located in Prince Edward Island or from Banff National Park. I hope that we do not begin a race to the bottom whereby the parks get more and more Disney-like in an effort to attract visitors.

As we move away from federal government financing of the parks, and I appreciate that we are looking at an 80-20 split here, 80% from the federal government and 20% from private revenue, we are on a very slippery slope where we may begin to increase the dependency of the parks on private financing. That then increases competition between the parks to attract the limited tourist dollars that come into this country. Once we do that, we move away from the ecological concerns and the preservation concerns of the mandate for having these national historic parks to creating a carnival-like atmosphere whereby the parks will cater to the lowest common denominator. I take the government at its word when it says we are not moving in this direction.

At the same time I am concerned that we are moving toward a more American style of parks system. As I speak to the House today I am not sure that members know this but it has been reported in “Environmental Dimensions” that on May 20 the minister of state for parks entered into an agreement with the United States regarding national parks along the border states. A co-management or a co-operation agreement has been entered into between Canada and the United States on managing the border area parks. There will be co-operation in management, research, protection, conservation and the presentation of national parks and national historic sites.

I do not know if members of the committee have been made aware of this but this country's national parks are something Canadians hold dear. They determine our identity. When people in other countries think of Canada they think of our national parks. They think of Banff in Alberta. They think of the new park in Prince Edward Island. The pristine waters. Those are the things that define us. Now we see that the minister of state has entered into an agreement to co-manage Canada's national parks that fall along the border between Canada and the United States.

Why in heaven's name would the minister do this? Why are we handing over the authority to manage those parks to another country? What does that mean in terms of Bill C-29?

It may well mean that personnel for border area parks could be American. It means that the new chief executive officer who will head the Canada parks agency will have to deal with the U.S. parks service. I am not sure the committee was aware of this at the time the bill was introduced. As I indicated, I do not sit on that committee, but I think it is worth questioning the minister in this regard.

The minister of course says for his part that he is delighted to have made the commitment to create a framework for future co-operation and co-ordination in conserving and presenting the national and cultural heritage sites. But these are our national and cultural heritage sites.

We see that kind of movement by the minister at the same time that we are introducing this piece of legislation to take some responsibility away from the government and to create an agency. At the same time we are talking about increasing user fees for the parks. At the same time we are not providing special incentives, if you will, for those who live in the areas so that they do not have to pay the same price to use the parks. It causes me concern as to where we are going with the national parks.

With those comments I indicate that the New Democratic Party has always been in favour of Canada's national historic parks and preserving them for the people of Canada and for the people in whose regions they exist.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments by the NDP member with respect to this piece of legislation. It is one of the few pieces of legislation that the Reform Party feels relatively comfortable with that has been proposed by the government with one or two exceptions that I will be outlining in a speech later today.

I really have to wonder where the head space of the NDP is with respect to this issue of making something more efficient. It would seem as though as long as national parks are under some kind of public service, some kind of overlayering of bureaucracy, that is going to make the parks more protected. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The biggest single problem that Parks Canada has had in recent history has been that there has been an overlayering and an overcomplication of the administration of the parks. What this act will do in terms of creating efficiency is set up the most creative and efficient way to deliver services to Canadians and visitors to the parks and to give the greatest protection to parks in Canada.

I think the NDP unfortunately is setting up a bogeyman by saying if we do not have all of this overlayering somehow the parks are going to be in peril. I do not know whether the NDP is coming from the 1950s, 1940s or the 1920s, but it certainly is not coming from the level of today's way of delivering services to people. I cannot imagine where this member has come from with his comments.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to that comment from the member who says he does not know where the head space is of the NDP. It is with the Canadian public and in the preservation of the things that the Canadian public from one end of the country to the other holds dear.

I understand the Reform Party will support this piece of legislation. Perhaps it is the beginning of unite the right or the merger the hon. member's leader speaks about. There is not that great a difference I guess between some Liberal thinking and Reform thinking.

The member says this is the most creative and efficient way to manage the parks. He asks if we are in the 1950s or the 1920s. We are moving well into the millennium when the preservation of the things Canadians hold dear will never be more important. We know where the Reform Party would like to go with Parks Canada. It would like to have a Disneyland and McDonald's on every corner. That is its mechanism for making money and becoming cost efficient in Canada's parks.

I am happy to respond to his comments and let Canadians know the difference between the NDP which has always fought to protect and preserve traditions of Canada and the Reform Party which has adopted the thinking of Ronald Reagan and the United States.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, apparently this member is not aware that I and my family have proudly lived in the region of East Kootenay since 1974. We live there because there are four mountain parks within my constituency in addition to another three mountain parks on the Alberta side of the border.

I am very aware of and have a personal commitment to parks. I find his myopic sense of righteousness as put forward by the NDP that somehow it is the only protectors of the environment to be exceptionally unfortunate.

It is my commitment and it is the commitment of the Reform Party that national parks be accessible to Canadians while at the same time reflecting that these parks represent a national treasure that must be protected.

It is really scandalous that he would be making these kinds of allegations which are absolutely, totally and factually inaccurate.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad it took my comments to wring out of the hon. member that he sees these as historic treasures even in his own riding. I suggest that the people of his riding, if they have concerns about the protection of those very parks that he has so eloquently mentioned, question him on this bill and what it means. I wonder if those individuals will have to pay the same price for access to their own land that the tourists will have to pay. I wonder if those people understand there may be a downgrading in the privatization of the parks to the lowest common denominator. I am sure, given his comments today and the members of his constituency who are watching him, that he will have to answer those questions for them.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member may not have been in the House last night. He must have missed the fact that the Reform Party voted in favour of the lower rates for the local residents. He obviously missed that.

With respect to the delivery of services, Kootenay National Park is in my constituency within the geography of my constituency office. The park did the initial trial for delivery of services by painting road signs of all things. The park created an efficiency after due process by giving an individual who was only half employed a commercial contract. On the basis of that commercial contract, the individual who had become an ex-park employee was able to start his own commercial sign business. With that base he could go ahead to develop his own private business in the Invermere area outside of Radium, the Kootenay National Park boundary.

Now delivery of the sign painting service to Kootenay National Park is at a significantly lower cost, a new commercial enterprise is now paying taxes and there is somebody who is very happy to deliver the commercial services as well as the services he is delivering to the park. It is a win-win-win. It is this kind of creativeness and inventiveness we would bring to deliver services to the Canadian public and to protect parks for future generations. It is not under the rubric or the umbrella of this overlaying of bureaucracy that the NDP seems to feel is the only way to protect the ecology of the parks. There are new ways. Maybe this member should start to learn that the NDP ideas of the 1950s do not fit anymore.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find that an interesting analogy. The hon. member has given us what he believes to be a success story of contracting out. I wonder if the individuals who live along the border states, where the minister of state has just entered into an agreement for co-management of Canada's parks, will feel happy if the contracting out of services goes to the Americans or if we go to some other nation to paint the signs, to mow the lawns, to bring in the machinery. I wonder how happy the constituents in this member's riding would be if the contracting out went to a nation with no minimum wage. I know that is his position. The workers in that riding would be forced to the lowest possible wage in order to maintain what was once their own land.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you ask, I believe you would find unanimous consent to withdraw my private member's bill on Louis Riel, given that tomorrow another precedent will be set in this House with the introduction of a private member's bill on Louis Riel prepared by two government members and four opposition members.

If you ask, I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis seeks the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw her bill on Louis Riel.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is no consent.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-29.

This act calls for the establishment of an agency to administer laws that apply to national parks, national historic sites, national marine conservation areas and other heritage areas and places. It would also amend related acts.

A number of amendments have been made to Bill C-29 which include changing the name of the agency. It was very important to us that the agency be known as the Parks Canada agency since Parks Canada has become a highly recognized tourism and cultural icon. While not all our amendments were adopted in committee we support the bill. It reflects the changes that need to take place be it by simplifying organizational structures, improving administrative efficiency and allowing more flexible staffing and financial procedures.

The bill establishes the Parks Canada agency as a distinct legal entity. The agency will report directly to the minister of heritage who will be accountable for its activities before parliament.

Bill C-29 also outlines the roles and responsibilities of the minister with respect to reporting and submission requirements to parliament, cabinet, Treasury Board and the public. This accountability regime includes responsibility for corporate reports, annual reports, state of Canadian protected area reports, management plans for both national parks and national historic sites and the holding of biannual public forums to solicit public feedback.

The legislation specifies the roles and responsibilities of the deputy minister of heritage with respect to policy advice, policy development and legislative development, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the chief executive officer of the Canada parks agency.

Bill C-29 also outlines the roles and responsibilities of Treasury Board as they relate to a broad array of administrative interactions between Treasury Board and the Canada parks agency. It also specifies the auditor general's audit function over the parks agency's financial statements and performance.

Bill C-29 also contains provisions for the maintenance of other government services and administrative functions as they relate to the functioning of the Canada parks agency. These include the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Employment Equity Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This bill would give the agency a number of financial powers, including a two year operational budget, retention and reinvestment power for all revenues, the establishment of an account to fund new national parks and historic sites from appropriations, the sale and surplus of properties and general donations, and the authority to advance funds for various reasons, including unfunded land acquisition opportunities.

Bill C-29 was not and is not a perfect a bill. A number of opposition members proposed amendments to Bill C-29 to strengthen it. Some of those amendments were adopted but other amendments that would have given the bill more teeth were rejected. We were told that such amendments should be brought to other related acts such as the Parks Canada Act. During our hearings on Bill C-29 many of the witnesses, including representatives of the Canadian Nature Federation and CPAWS, shared their concern that the government must do more to protect the ecological integrity of our parks.

The auditor general in his 1996 report criticized Parks Canada for not doing enough to protect the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks. He also stated the government is in danger of not meeting its objective of completing the national park system by the year 2000. Even the minister of state for parks acknowledges that the national park system cannot be completed in the next two years.

My party looks forward to dealing with the Canada Parks Act when it comes before the House. Although Canada's parks service has been in existence since 1911 it has never been legislatively recognized as the manager of the park system.

For instance, Parks Canada is not even mentioned in the National Parks Act and does not have a significant legislative mandate. The PC Party has always recognized the importance of our national parks and national historic sites as contributors to our Canadian cultural identity.

In 1988 the former Progressive Conservative government modernized the National Parks Act which had not been updated since 1930. I look forward to remodernizing the National Parks Act and other acts that have a consequence on our parks, historic sites and waterways. My party will continue to work hard to promote, protect and enhance our rich legacy of accomplishments.

In closing, I thank all those groups and individuals who brought their concerns to me and assure them today that we will continue to work on their behalf to bring forward amendments to legislation as it comes before the House. As parliamentarians it is very important that we work together to ensure that Canada's natural heritage and resources are conserved for future generations. I urge all hon. members to support the bill.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that I am sharing my time with the member for Oak Ridges.

Throughout the House I have heard some very positive comments about the forming of this parks agency. There is no question that it is a very positive step forward. When we think about the national parks system and national historic sites we think about the canals and the conservation areas. We think about all that will fall under this agency. It is a fantastic opportunity to show Canadians and people around the world what Canadians really stand for.

There is absolutely no question that as we look at our parks system it encompasses some of the most imaginative and most characteristic sections of Canada. There is no question that our heritage sites represent very important historic references to Canada. There is no question that we have within our parks system, our heritage system, our conservation areas, a really great story to tell.

That story can be told to young people throughout the land by taking them to those areas. That story can be told to all Canadians. In fact it can be told to visitors around the world to show what a great country we are, what great background we have and what great historical significance there is to this great country.

It is with a great deal of pride that I am able to talk to this issue today. I think it is in essence what Canada is about. The Canadian parks system has been significant over the past. It has grown tremendously in the last several years. There is no question that it must expanded. It must be moved forward as well.

We have some very significant national sites that we must incorporate into the 39 different areas we designate as significant areas. We must make certain that the message to Canadians is that we respect this great country with its land and historic sites, with all this put together.

If we travel through the north we see some amazing river valleys, gorges and mountain sites. We can look at the grasslands in Saskatchewan and realize it is the land of the prairie dog. This is the area where Sitting Bull rested after a traumatic event in the United States.

We can look at Prince Edward Island National Park and realize it is among the finest areas of Canada with the best salt water beaches in the country. Anne of Green Gables, a tremendous significant issue in Canada, is one of our national historic sites.

In my riding we have Point Pelee, one of the best birding locations in the world. People from Europe, Asia and the United States, in fact people from all over the world, come to visit that area to see the significance and celebrate this land itself.

We can look back at our heritage and understand some significant adventures in history. I think of Josiah Henson and the fabulous story of Uncle Tom's Cabin , the black culture coming together in our sites, or I think of other opportunities for Canadians to participate and enjoy what is happening.

Certainly with the agency coming to bear we can see some tremendous changes coming about. We will now have opportunity to move into parks that will have great significance for Canada's Great Lakes and Atlantic and Pacific areas.

Fathom Five National Marine Park protects Niagara escarpment history and work on the Georgian Bay waters. We have conservation marine parks on the Atlantic coast and on the Pacific coast which point out the significance of our flora and fauna, our rich culture and our Indian heritage.

The Saguenay River marine park on the St. Lawrence protects beluga whales, seals, plant and bird life of all kinds. Our national marine conservation area program is new and will remain an ongoing part of the national parks system. The evolution of our national parks system is very significant to our heritage and our understanding of the country.

Historic sites and monuments are another alternative area of education and support that we must make sure is expanded in a wide range of areas. Recently the board undertook initiatives to consider the history of aboriginal people in the country, the history and culture of women and the communities that have brought a great deal to our nation.

We could talk about the Grizzly Bear Mountain area and Scented Grass Hills that have been designated historic sites by our minister. We could talk about our great culture and Portia White, a Nova Scotian with a very rich, vibrant voice, a great concert personality in the area. We are designating sites to recognize great accomplishments of Canadians.

We will move forward with a cultural site for the black cultural centre in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. We certainly need to recognize the races. We need to recognize the cultures that have made the nation come together and great. We need to move forward on the issue of significant Canadians to ensure recognition of such events.

There is no question that the legislation will allow the parks agency to focus upon permanent, forward moving areas which will make the country very rich in national pride and very rich in national culture, one that we can display to the world, that we can exhibit to our visitors, and show our internal pride.

Because we have such good support in the House for the legislation it shows that all Canadians, regardless of political stripe, are extremely proud of the accomplishments of people and of the physical terrain of the country. We look forward to making certain the legislation moves along as quickly as possible.

I am pleased with many of the comments I have heard from the opposition. I am pleased with the comments I have heard from my own colleagues. I have to say for all Canadians that we are looking at something that is truly great for our land.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested as a point of information from the member who just spoke particularly about Point Pelee. As he mentioned somebody involved in birding would love this park. It is a very special place as are all national parks. However, it is in the middle of one of the Great Lakes where shipping is going back and forth. Unfortunately, as we know by some of the crustaceans that have ended up in water intakes and so on, very frequently ships from offshore will actually end up pumping bilge or from time to time dropping oil and that kind of thing.

As a point of interest and information, could the member enlighten us from a local perspective whether, in taking a look at the ecological integrity of that area, we should be looking at any further restrictions or any further controls particularly with respect to shipping and the potential of pollution around Point Pelee?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because it is an extremely significant one.

The freshwater system in Canada, particularly the Great Lakes, is one that has over the last five or ten years suffered a fair amount of change because of the zebra mussel being brought into Canada in the bilge water dumpings from foreign vessels.

There are questions about other significant changes that can occur from boats entering the Great Lakes system, dumping bilge water and causing ecological change which in many cases could be very negative and problematic in the future.

I have made very clear in the past that I would certainly support and endorse this issue. I had opportunity to meet with several fishing communities and ecologists in our area two weeks ago to discuss it. We talked about legislation that may be significant.

I think legislation should be put into force that the dumping of bilge water from ships has to be stopped in our Great Lakes and in other waterways where it what may cause significant change in our systems. I have no question about that.

The member is pointing out a very clear ecological problem not just for the Great Lakes, by the way. All freshwater systems throughout the country must have some type of protection. I would strongly endorse working at international levels to make sure that other countries with similar pristine areas to Canada's are protected as well as they possibly can be.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the government has changed its mind and if I may now present my repeal of Bill C-68 petitions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville has asked for unanimous consent to revert to presenting petitions. Is there unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that, if you ask, you will probably find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That the order for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of Bill C-213, An Act respecting the designation of a Louis Riel Day and revoking his conviction of August 1, 1885, be discharged, the bill withdrawn, and the item removed from the items outside the order of precedence.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.